Slashdot Mirror


France Will Be Home To Fusion Plant

ScentCone writes "After years of politicking, France has won the right to be the location for a $12 billion fusion research facility. The plant will use deuterium-from-seawater and a huge electromagnetic ring to produce the 100-million-C conditions in which researchers hope to produce viable fusion. The debate over whether this is even possible continues to rage. The ITER project started in 1985, and there has been a running fight over money and location since. France indicated that if Japan (one of the holdouts) didn't see it their way, they'd build a coalition of the willing and do it anyway. With financing and contracting agreements in place, the 10-year construction can begin." Coverage also available at MSNBC, the NYTimes, CNN, and the BBC.

744 comments

  1. Let the E-Wars begin! by Vonotar82 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure Greenpeace is gonna Love this!!

    --
    "I drank WHAT?!"--Socrates
    1. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by spyder913 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nah they just need to refer to it as 'Solar Power' and people will think it's great!

    2. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm sure Greenpeace is gonna Love this!!

      Specifically, Greenpeace (real quote), said: " At a time when it is universally recognized that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Greenpeace considers it ridiculous to use resources and billions of euros on this project"

      You know, because it would be horrible to have this as an emmissions-free source of energy. Incredible.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by spike+hay · · Score: 2, Informative

      Specifically, Greenpeace (real quote), said: " At a time when it is universally recognized that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Greenpeace considers it ridiculous to use resources and billions of euros on this project"

      You know, because it would be horrible to have this as an emmissions-free source of energy. Incredible.


      Green Peacers have never been the type to use calm logic. It is nuclear, therefore it is bad.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    4. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by October_30th · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suppose the logic goes along the lines: no one knows if fusion will ever be a feasible power source whereas spending the same money on further developing and promoting (taxation, R&D, ...) existing environmentally friendly technologies is a better bet.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    5. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by daniil · · Score: 3, Informative
      It seems to be because of safety concerns, but also because they demand a solution that would work now, not 50 years in the future. From the BBC article: "However, some environmental groups are doubtful about the viability of nuclear fusion, and have warned that Cadarache lies on a known earthquake faultline./../Some green groups criticised Tuesday's announcement as a waste of money. They are doubtful whether Iter will ever deliver practical technologies. "With 10 billion [euros], we could build 10,000MW offshore windfarms, delivering electricity for 7.5 million European households," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International."

      I can actually see their point, yet this doesn't mean i agree with them...

      ---
      Came flying low.

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    6. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Viceice · · Score: 1, Interesting

      As a sign of good will towards mother nature, i propose ALL members of Greenpeace be given the honour of being the first visitors to the INSIDE of the reactor when it's finally operational... and OPERATING...

      That said, Greenpeace isn't an enviormentalist movement. It's just a movement of people who are mental... Heck, many real enviormental movements want to have NOTHING to do with Greenpeace.

      --
      Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
    7. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Frymaster · · Score: 2, Informative
      Specifically, Greenpeace (real quote), said: " At a time when it is universally recognized that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Greenpeace considers it ridiculous to use resources and billions of euros on this project"

      care to source that "real quote"?

      the greenpeace press release on the fusion plant in question is here. i didn't see your quote in it anywhere.

      i would further suggest that, if you are actually intetested in following greenpeace's position on this and similar matters, that you monitor to report and publication section of greenpeace eu. it's here.

    8. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "You know, because it would be horrible to have this as an emmissions-free source of energy. Incredible."

      You're missing the point. Even if ITER works, we're still many decades away from commercial fusion power. More improvement would result from spending that money in optimizing what we already have.

      Also, IIRC Greenpeace grudgingly supports nuclear technology because it's the lesser evil.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    9. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Informative

      care to source that "real quote"?

      I'm guessing you don't consider Reuters to be trustworthy? Well, anyway: here's a run of the article as seen on Yahoo where you can read the quote verbatim.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've always held the view that the main aim of Greenpeace is to preserve the existence of Greenpeace. But I guess that's the way many large organisations eventually go.

    11. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, IIRC Greenpeace grudgingly supports nuclear technology because it's the lesser evil.

      Actually, the word they use in reference to this particular project is "madness." Here is an article discussing their condemnation of this project.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    12. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a sign of good will towards mother nature, i propose ALL members of Greenpeace be given the honour of being the first visitors to the INSIDE of the reactor when it's finally operational... and OPERATING...

      And when the containment field fails, all of France will disappear in a great big explosion. We win either way. Muhahaaa...

    13. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by MinutiaeMan · · Score: 5, Insightful
      but also because they demand a solution that would work now, not 50 years in the future.
      Gee, that's a great idea! By that line of thinking, our ancestors would never have bothered to develop the wheel, because carrying stuff on our back was "just good enough". Besides, think of all those poor stones back in prehistoric times that were sacrificed in the name of "progress" to create the wheels of the future -- it's a crime against nature, I tell you!

      The whole point of this endeavor is that it's an experiment to develop a method that will work in the future, and a method that offers greater potential. I'm quite sure that, once fusion power becomes economical and practical on a widespread basis (and no major disasters turn public opinion against it), the cutbacks in emissions that could be made by shutting down all the older power plants will more than make up for the problems. That's a bit of an assumption, I know, but suffice to say that current methods of "alternative" power generation are not truly practical on a widespread basis.
    14. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by zerus · · Score: 3, Informative

      All of Greenpeace may not be against it. One of the founders, Patrick Moore, had an article about his supporting nuclear power in the June 2005 issue of Nuclear News (traditional fission power, fusion not mentioned). I think it was a transcript of testimony in front of one of the numerous energy committees in the House back in April if you don't have access to this periodical. But he makes the case for nuclear being the only rational option for long term energy production. So if not all of Greenpeace is made of the "anti-human," "environmental extremists" (his words) then perhaps they might start to make the case, en masse, that nuclear is a better option than fossil fuels (of course everyone in the nuclear industry is saying "duh" at this point)

    15. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder why anyone considers the 2050 figure the most optimistic. It only took about 15 years from the first small scale nuclear reactor to the first commercial nuclear power plant.

      There could be a breakthrough at any time which will lead to power plants being developed within a few years. Or it may not be possible at all, and never happen.

    16. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think it would be irresponsible to place all your bets in short term solutions, just as it would be irresponsible to place all your bets in long term solutions.

      There are known side-effects of fusion though.

      Fusion does involve a lot of waste heat, and the not-well-known fact is that fusion is slightly radioactive.

      All forms of energy have negative ecological impacts, but I think Greenpeace should pick their battles better.

    17. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Pelops · · Score: 1

      Well, the faultlne is a false problem. If i remember well, the number of earthquake in Japan is way higher than in that area of France.
      I think the last "major" earthquake in that area was due to that explosion in one factory.

    18. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Informative
      I'm guessing you don't consider Reuters to be trustworthy?

      i do. however, i do take umbrage with the parent poster's complete lack of context! for reference, the paragraphs in question are:

      Environmental campaign group Greenpeace estimates that if the project yields any results at all, it will not be until the second half of this century.

      "At a time when it is universally recognized that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Greenpeace considers it ridiculous to use resources and billions of euros on this project," it said.

      what this says to me is that greenpeace is saying the fusion project will probably not make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions for fifty years and we should be using that 10 billion euros to convert our polluting power sources to current solutions, such as they are.

    19. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by October_30th · · Score: 1

      It's not really about the negative ecological impacts. All above assumes that fusion WILL become a feasible energy source -- that is not certain.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    20. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      I for one cheered when Mr. Burns impersonated a hippy and sank their ship. It was great!

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    21. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frymaster burned!

    22. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but meanwhile we shouldn't use any of the money for research because it'll happen by itself in the next 50 years. Yeah we hear what you mean but the reality is still there. If you spend the research money on other projects how do you do further research?

    23. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by daniil · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Gee, that's a great idea!

      Actually, it does make a lot of sense if you see things their way. If we don't act now, there might not be much left to save by the time we have a working solution (why do we even need one? Because there's reason to believe that in the near future, we'll hit an oil crisis and will need another energy source). Wind power might not be as good a solution as fusion power is (building all those wind farms will probably take even more resources than building a fusion plant), but if it works, it would at least be a partial solution for the immediate problem at hand.

      And yes, i find it reasonable to solve the power problem (if there will ever be one) using that works now, instead of waiting for the utopia (at present, it is a utopia, in that it doesn't exist yet, and might not even come to exist in the form everyone imagines that it will) of fusion power to come true.

      ---
      A nasty snotball

      --
      Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
    24. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Other than potential equipment destruction, I think it's a doubly false problem because I don't think a big earthquake there is going to harm the environment like as if a big meltdown occured at a fission plant.

      They should consider it a victory that people are investigating all forms of alternative energy sources.

    25. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you know?

      Evil will always win, because Good is Dumb.

    26. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by peculiarmethod · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I can't seem to find a party that is void of illogical worries and stand-points. I still hear 'freedom-fries' all the time here in militant San Diego. Next thing you know, we'll be renaming the oil-industry to "freedom energy" to spite those darned French.

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    27. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the greenpeace press release on the fusion plant in question is here. i didn't see your quote in it anywhere.

      Maybe you should find a press release that is more recent than one from 2003.

      i would further suggest that, if you are actually intetested in following greenpeace's position on this and similar matters...

      I'm not really interested in the slightest. While I share Greenpeace's commitment to saving the environment and to achieving nuclear disarmament and world peace, I think their fear of nuclear fusion power is ludicrous and unfounded. To be honest, their opposition to it has made me write off their opinion on it almost completely.

      They do have a really good point about what we could achieve if we put that money to other uses right now. However, if fusion is to be achieved, serious money must be committed to it. They just don't want the technology to even exist, and I do not respect them for it.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    28. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by MinutiaeMan · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree that it's still a relatively far-off technology, but the point is, it's such an advanced technology that it's going to be expensive to develop, regardless of how long it takes. But if we put it all into one big project, it's more likely that we can develop a successful method sooner.

      Besides, it's not like the money going into this project is going to be taking money away from other power plant construction, is it?

    29. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by arkanoid.dk · · Score: 1
      I guess you're missing the point as well Because a technology doesn't prove to yield any suplus for approximately 50 years we shouldn't develope it? Thats about the same thing people said about aircrafts, rockets, computers and so on.

      Progress exists on the cost of the present... however, humanity have outlived 6000 years of progess now... and we're still here

      --
      Arkanoid
      gethostbyintuition()... why not?
    30. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Interesting


      I'm what would usually be considered very environmentally minded. I've not only supported environmental work financially, but I attempt to live in an eco-friendly manner.

      I've found Greenpeace to be predominantly made up of people who don't think for themselves and have an psychological need to "get even."

      I'm not saying useful work is not done by them. They do good work against whaling for example. But as an organization they have a real inability to use logic.

      Bring on the fusion, I say. I'm even happy with modern nuclear power if the alternative is fossil fuels.

      In the meantime, I'll support people like IFAW, WWF and carry on cycling.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    31. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by samkass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seems to me that the more "waste heat" a process produces, the more potential it has as a power source once fully developed. Any differential in temperature produced by a process can, in general, be turned into power.

      And a not-well-known fact is that burning coal is slightly radioactive to the atmosphere as well.

      It's all relative.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    32. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Bloater · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I've been watching for news from these people. Although I have no idea if they are legitimate or not. The documentation on their website (though incomplete from a geek's point of view) suggests a highly efficient direct fusion->electiricity reactor with no generator (so no inefficient steam turbine). The proposed pB11 reaction (one proton + Boron nucleus -> 3He2+) gets electricity in the process of slowing the resulting He nucleuses (alpha radiation). Apparantly the reaction chamber is safe to enter after a few minutes of the reaction shutting down.

      It would be nice if anybody could provide some sound evidence that this is a legitimate organisation - and that their claim of achieving a 2 billion Kelvin burn is sensible.

    33. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Weird. I also live in SD, and I never hear "freedom fries", or any other obviously conservative thing, except on AM talk radio (Air America excepted).

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    34. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by 2short · · Score: 0

      "it's more likely that we can develop a successful method sooner."

      Greenpeace's argues that we have sucessful methods now. Fusion is such an advanced technology, that it doesn't actually exist (as a viable technology) yet. Hence we don't really know its limitations and drawbacks, and so its boosters assume there will be none.

      "Besides, it's not like the money going into this project is going to be taking money away from other power plant construction, is it?"

      Yes. Of course it is. Money that is spent on one thing can not be spent on another. If I say, "it is stupid to spend money on A, we need to be spending it on B" it is a poor argument to say "But we're not going to spend it on B in any case". because by my view you're saying, we're going to be stupid in any case, we may as well be stupid this way. Yeah, fusion might work out to be the energy source of the future. But that's not sufficient reason to spend massively on it. So might wind power. We must make some judgement about which is more likely to help and how soon. Greenpeace thinks it's no contest, and their policy making group probaly includes more hard-science PhDs than the energy policy making groups of the all the countries setting up this project put together.

      All that said, I haven't really looked at Greenpeace's arguments on this specifically, and I don't know if I agree with them or not. I do know that their positions are typically carefully considered and have etremely sound scientific backing. And that many people routinely dismiss these positions without a moments thought, ironically calling Greenpeace "knee-jerk" environmentalists.

    35. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, but Greenpeace has made a different take.

      My take is that ITER doesn't live in the same world as the other technologies. It's a big budget science project like a space program.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    36. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Mad_Rain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Gee, that's a great idea! By that line of thinking, our ancestors would never have bothered to develop the wheel, because carrying stuff on our back was "just good enough".

      How about another metaphor more slashdotters can relate to - When to upgrade some computer hardware.

      This situation is akin to "Well, my computer's not fast enough anymore to run FPS-of-the-moment with the resolution cranked all the way up. I've got $150 in my pocket this week, and over the next couple of months I can save up $1000." So you have 3 choices: 1) Lower the resolution and eye-candy. 2) Buy some RAM, or a newer video card, and make some progress towards getting that FPS going at full speed. Or 3) "I'll just wait a while, until the really new stuff drops in price."

      So you can leave the problem where it's at (no good), can put together a solution that works better right now (an improved situation), or you can hope that you'll somehow survive and can find the uber-solution later.

      I think what sensible people should be advocating for is that middle solution - make things better, sooner, rather than hold out until later, in both the computer upgrade problem and the power problem.

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    37. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Prophetic_Truth · · Score: 1

      say, here's a strange idea..Let's do both

      --
      time is a perception of a being's consciousness
      time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
    38. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Huh? You just said the same thing twice. Spending money on fusion is spending money on "developing and promoting existing environmentally friendly technologies!" Fusion exists now; we just haven't achieved economies of scale yet.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    39. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by sploxx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're missing the point. Even if ITER works, we're still many decades away from commercial fusion power. More improvement would result from spending that money in optimizing what we already have.

      I'm sure that this happens ALOT faster if the oil price rises steeply.

      Give us humans a rational cause (global warming etc.) and we'll ignore it.
      Give us a 'direct' feeling (evil enemy in (cold) war, money for gasoline), and we'll react promptly.

    40. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by AnonymousNoMore · · Score: 1

      "And all this time, I've been smoking harmless tobacco!"

      priceless

    41. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Rickler · · Score: 1

      Windfarms cost a lot of money and energy to make, for the power they will put out and the cost there not a viable source of energy. France is already 90% Nuclear energy; I don't see why there is much reason for the green party to complain. Compared to America using 52% coal power and only 14.7% Nuclear... Which is worse? A family person indirectly burning over 8 tons of coal for their electricity or about a test tube size portion of nuclear waste?

      --

      The human race is artificial intelligence created using object orientated programming.
    42. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

      And how much better spent money would be for projects like this than on more "creative" ways to kill ourselves? Your logic is pure crap. People spend 1 trillion+ on military, about the same on illegal drugs and then you bitch that 10 billion for an applied/pure science research project is money wasted?

      With the shortsighetness of people like you, we deserve to nuke ourselves back to the stone age.

    43. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      Most of these left-wing, greenpeace-supporting, PETA-loving, new age, tree-hugging hippies don't have enough brain cells to be able to figure out what's really good for the planet or not. I remember an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! where they covered the so-called environmental movement. Two of the most humorous parts of that show: (1) the supposed spokeswoman of the world wildlife federation. She was so clueless that when asked to define certain words used in the enviromental movement, it resulted in such blank stares that you could almost see her two brain cells grinding together (with smoke coming out the ears). The other funny moment from this show were the clips about the Dihydrogen Monoxide petition that the Bullshit! producers passed around at one of these earth day celebrations. They actually had real people signing a petition to ban WATER because they were told of all the potential harm that could come to us because of it! What dumbasses! Greenpeace is about as useless as PETA. Both organizations are so far to the left side of the spectrum, and so clueless, that even moderate republicans and democrats don't even listen to them!!!!

    44. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by frp001 · · Score: 1

      Anyway this is all plot to come back later and say France is hiding WMDs!!!

      --
      May I use your sig please?
    45. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, that's not fair. Greenpeacers are very valuable. After all, they exhale carbon dioxide ... which is needed by plants.

    46. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 2, Informative

      A professor of mine told me "Fringe scientists are important and necessary to science. But they're still fringe scientists."

      They seem to have a huge number of support seeking websites, yet only one actual research paper that I could find. Furthermore, the research paper's references were mostly conference conversations, and the author's own publications. I didn't specifically check, but it doesn't appear the paper is actually published in any journal.

      I also can't seem to find any support from any other scientists outside of his team. Though an article on sciscoop says they have support from MIT.

      Now that's all very rare. I would wager that any plasma physicists he's told his theory to has written him off as insane. Now, there is a chance that we have another enstein here, but there's a larger chance that we have a dud.

      sorry.

    47. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok, look at is this way... by spending 10B euros on

      ITER: Potentially solve the world's energy problems for a long time
      Windfarms: Produce enough energy to supply about 0.6% of the world's electricity demand.

      10,000MW may seem like a lot, but according to the CIA World Factbook, the world consumed 13.8 quadrillion watt-hours in 2001, so the energy produced by the windfarms they're proposing would be a drop in the ocean.

    48. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Darby · · Score: 1

      I've always held the view that the main aim of Greenpeace is to preserve the existence of Greenpeace. But I guess that's the way many large organisations eventually go.

      I read a book called, "You are being lied to" from these guys One of the last articles was by one of the original founders of Greenpeace. He basically said he formed it to achieve certain goals. He split when people started talking about retirement plans etc.

    49. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think their point is that in 80 years when fusion power plants begin to become a possible replacement to current technologies, it will be too late as the damage will have already been done.

    50. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

      I'm giving my understanding on Greenpeace's stance, not knocking ITER. I don't personally think it's a waste.

      --
      I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
    51. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean we should spend the money in two places at once?

      Your new economic theory intrigues me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    52. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Snover · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm a bit surprised. I thought that the moral of your analogy was going to be "quit trying to live beyond your means". Guess that keeping the status quo is more important than ensuring it exists in the future.

      --

      [insert witty comment here]
    53. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      fusion as in fusing atoms together indeed exists

      fusion as a source of usefull energy however does not. We have to put more energy into controlling the conditions than we can generate. iirc its generally belived that by going bigger the advantages of scale will make it a source of usefull energy but there is still a long way to go.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    54. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by builderbob_nz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Reminds me a bit of what happened in the NZ government when the Green party finally got some MPs voted in. What happened was an MP from one of the big parties distributed a joke email about the dangers of oxygen-dihydride and that hundreds of New Zealanders die from exposure to it each year.

      Well without stopping to ask a chemist what h20 was, the Green party imediately issued a press release calling for a nation-wide ban on all of this dangerous chemical. Needless to say it would be rather difficult given that we are a nation of islands!

      --

      Karma? Hey I just call it as I see it.
    55. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by AdmiralWeirdbeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fun tho it is to bash on greenpeace, you might want to consider a couple things.

      First, they have a good point. If you've read more than simply the greenpeace soundbite, you'd know that the overall position is that this represents merely another in a chain of expensive energy projects that will not be operational many years. This reactor should be online in 2015, but the project was begun in 1988: that date should be considered with a few grains of salt. Meanwhile, conservative governments, like the Bush Emperium, get to spout about how they're pursuing clean alternatives, like fusion, instead of doing anything about future shortages now by starting a program of active conservation.

      Second, though the reaction itself is indeed emissions-free, you must consider the energy budget of the entire process. This includes but is not limited to: the fabrication of the plant itself and all of its component parts, transportation of all of its component parts to the plant's location, etc. All of which are unlikely to be done with clean energy, as most are highly energy intensive industrial processes, or likely to be done using large diesel trucks. Additionally there is the question of the massive amount of energy necessary to start the fusion reaction, which is unlikely (at first anyways) to be a part of the theoretically self-sustaining nature of a fusion reactor.

      This is not to say the thing shouldnt be built, it should. We just shouldnt have the illusion that its helping out with any of our energy needs any time during the first half of the century.

      While I have no love for eco-nuts, it is pretty silly to ignore everything, just because you're enamored with the technology they've dissed.

      --
      Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
    56. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparantly the reaction chamber is safe to enter after a few minutes of the reaction shutting down.

      I would like to have an airco like that! Cooling couple of bilion degrees to a nonburning 300 Kelvin in just a couple of minutes!

      (we just had a heat wave :) )

    57. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Shihar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think this is just the nature of many far out there environmentalist groups. They loath technology and technological solutions. They are utterly obsessed with extrapolating the present to the future. "At our current rate" is their favorite phrase. If these people were in charge we would never have had an industrial revolution, or, as soon as we noticed how ugly the industrial revolution was, they would have advocated halting progression and changing society such that the status quo was sustainable.

      The simple fact of the matter is that humans, especially in this day and age, are driven forward to solve their problems with technology. You build a technology, use it, find its flaws, then fix the flaws. So, yes, solar power is fine, as is wind power. What they utterly ignore these technologies are expensive, ugly in terms of resource usage, limited in application, and completely unsustainable for our energy needs without some sort of interference in our social lives. This is completely unrealistic. You are not going to convince a European, and certainly never convince an American that what they really need to do is slow or reduce their energy consumption to the extremes required AND eat the additional costs in taxes and economic productivity required to meet sustainable environmental goals with the technology we have. It is like advocating that the cure for war is for people to just for people to stop getting mad at each other. That certainly might be a cure, but it isn't going to happen in any of our life times.

      What we need is a technology that can produce massive amounts of clean energy without any ugly waste products. Fusion is one of those technologies. It is worth pumping some money into it if in 50 years it means the world will have more cheap energy then it knows what to do with.

      We have 6 billion people on this planet that all want power, cars, and a basic standard of living. We have a billion or so that live in relative luxury to the rest and utterly refuse to lower their standard of living, if for no other reason then the economic destruction they would suffering for doing so. This will NEVER be a sustainable state of affairs. The only way out is for the billion haves to figure out a way to keep what they have without being so destructive to the environment, and develop it for the have nots who make the environmental destruction of the haves look like pocket change. The three billion or so people sitting in between China, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia who currently have nothing are not going to stay that way forever, and a few solar cells are NOT going to meet their needs. Either we have a technology waiting for them when they rise out of poverty or the environment pays the price.

    58. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Bloater · · Score: 1

      The material at 2 billion K is only a few micrometres across, I gather. The only reason it is dangerous to enter the concrete chamber it is all in is due to high-energy x-rays and alpha radiation.

    59. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Green Peacers have never been the type to use calm logic. It is nuclear, therefore it is bad.

      Get the speling rite - it's NUCULAR, not nuclear.

    60. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by RayBender · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The proton-Boron fusion idea sounded good a while back, but then a clever MIT grad student (link to his thesis) wrote a thesis proving that it (along with a bunch of other clever ideas) would never work. Bummer.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    61. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You're certainly right. My reaction, alas, is to their sweeping, knee-jerk (and entirely predictable) condemnation of research like this just because it resonates with the same things they've been protesting for years.

      Protesting all things "nuclear" is essentially a religion for these clowns, and they seek to use emotionally high-strung messages to cut off reasonable research, and even reasonable discussion about it.

      That doesn't mean that we should just twiddle our fingers while working on bio-fuel, etc. But I certainly won't hesitate to poke my finger in their eye when they're behaving like twits, which they do pretty much non-stop. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, etc.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    62. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Their press release on this indicated that fusion power plants "would emit large amounts of radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons."

      Now, I know that there is some radioactivity from fusion, though it was my understanding that this is fairly easily contained (with required cleanup later on). But I also thought it could not be used to produce products for weapons. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this can clear this up?

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    63. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

      You don't realize exactly how close we are to reaching unity in energy input/output do you.

      --
      Sig
    64. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by rsynnott · · Score: 1

      But the US is a co-member (sporadically) of the ITDR. Helping build a fusion plant in France! Imagine!

      --
      Me (Blog)
    65. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What is the latest best ratio? I remember when a couple of universities were closing in on things, and their funding got cut along with the SCSC.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    66. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Construction costs for wind power in the United States seem to be about $1 per rated peak watt over a large scale (there are several 180MW farms under development for about $180 million each). I've seen numbers that suggest that the actual average output for most wind farms is about 40% of rated capacity, so the cost is $2.50 per watt for average output. I don't know what kind of maintenance costs come with wind farms; information on that would be appreciated.

      Westinghouse is claiming costs of $1.21 to $1.37 per watt for the 1000MW AP1000 reactor design, depending on scale and number produced, which is half of the cost of wind power, on a smaller location than wind would require for 1000MW, and at a higher sustained output. Maintenance and fuel costs are still a question mark, though.

      At least at the surface, the AP1000 looks like a better way of doing things than a giant wind farm. I need to do more research to find out if materials produced in such a design could be used easily for nuclear weapons, though.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    67. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Bloater · · Score: 1

      Section 2.1 (Simplifying Assumptions and Conventions Used in The Thesis) seems to make this thesis not-applicable to the theories of Eric Lerner - although IANAPP (I Am Not A Plasma Physicist).

      In particular, it seems that the paper assumes the plasma is stable. Eric Lerner's proposed focus fusion device supposedly relies on an unstable plasma. So the paper seems to say nothing about the behaviour of this device.

    68. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Pakaran2 · · Score: 1

      My understanding of fusion is that it is significantly safer than fission simply because there isn't all that much fuel in the reactor at any given time. Refueling is a matter of injecting the fuel and heating it up to operating temperature; the later is a cost that's close to proportional the the amount of fuel you use. If a fusion plant had a bad accident, it might cause expensive damage for the operator (by overheating, particularly) but it wouldn't cause a disaster.

    69. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? Wrote a thesis proving shit?

    70. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100 Million C...

      that's hot. are you absolutely certain beyond the shadow of a doubt that ANYTHING can get that hot and NOT produce an emission?

      Hell at that temperature air would be tempted to turn into charcoal. or char-air as it would be.

      that's crazy. Leave it to the french to start a global thermonucular crisis.

    71. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 1

      Greenpeace exist to make other environmental groups look very sane and rational. Sorta the polar opposite of rush limbaugh/bill o'reilly, they exist to make other republicans look rather normal and logical.

      I can't stand green peace, but consider myself an environmentalist. Let bad people deal with greenpeace for a few years, they will more then welcome other logical groups after a while if it gets greenpeace off their back.

    72. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

      basically, a fusion reactor that would be capable of creating fuel for weapons would have to be designed specifically for that purpose and would be easily detected.

    73. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Tab+is+on+Slashdot · · Score: 0

      So you can leave the problem where it's at (no good), can put together a solution that works better right now (an improved situation), or you can hope that you'll somehow survive and can find the uber-solution later.

      Reminds me of an axiom that I believe I picked up here:
      "Good, cheap, soon -- choose two."

    74. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Pingla · · Score: 1

      That would be true if there was only one alternative.
      Rather, one does not cancel the other. There has been a lot of talk and research done on fusion, but for this technology, perhaps not enough. What is being done now is a big joint effort in finding out if fusion actually is feasible. If this project cannot produce the technology it is most likely way too advanced for us at our current level of knowledge. The thought is simply "let's find out if we can actually do this!" It is a lot of money, but well worth the risk. Just imagine if such power can be tamed, it would change the way we life because energy would no longer be of any concern, there would be abundant!

      However, there will of course still be spent money on other alternatives alongside this one research.

    75. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

      The press release has me seriously confused. Greenpeace claims in their response that nuclear fusion shares all the problems of fission, including producing nuclear waste. Until now, every discussion of fusion power that I have seen has suggested fusing hydrogen: just exactly how is this process going to produce the kind of elements that produce radioactivity and have half lives in the hundreds of years? I would have thought that producing wastes with atomic weights larger that helium would be absurdly difficult and far more trouble than it was worth.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    76. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that the nuclear waste is generated by the neutron bombardment of the walls of the reactor chamber. That is the nuclear waste is not actually a result, but a byproduct of fusion.

      Ordinary nuclear fission power plants also have this problem. When they are torn down they will have to be stored safely for hundreds of years.

    77. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by LucidBeast · · Score: 1
      We could start a betting pool, which is more feasible: free and stable Iraq or free and stable energy from fusion.

      Both are long bets. Iraq freedom project will cost US taxpayers in the end propably in excess of 500 billion. Fusion project is spread out more evenly amonst nations and will cost about the same.

      Politics is mostly about how to move money from one pocket to another.

    78. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by karstux · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, it's only the reactor shielding which has a limited lifespan and becomes (mildly) radioactive over time. There are no "fuel rods" of any sort which would produce the nuclear waste as we know it from fission plants.

      In terms of toxicity, radioactivity and quantity, fusion plants would be (by orders of magnitude) cleaner than fission plants.

      I was planning to back these claims up with a link, but I cannot seem to find the page with the info anymore, sorry...

      --
      Don't whistle while you're pissing.
    79. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good call, mate, eshewing those energy wasting upper-case letters!

    80. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greenpeace would not sign on to a project which would provide unlimited free energy with no unpleasant byproducts starting tomorrow. Their concern is not environmental pollution per se: they really want to see a world uncontaminated by modernity. They don't want us to use pollution-free energy; they want us to use no energy at all. They are idiots.

    81. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Yes! I can see it now. All we need to do is simultaneously fuse 119 deuterium atoms together into one super-atom. If we use tritium we cut that down to 79.33 atoms. (plus tritium sounds more sinister.) Rinse and repeat and we can form the worlds largest supply of wepons grade nuclear material! I knew those damn Frenchies were up to something, and those sneeky Japanese still want payback.

      Alternately they could be developing a secret "Hydrogen Bomb" that looks something like this http://www.nlhs.com/images/hindenburg/big_hindenbu rg_and_zmc-2_in_hangar_1.jpg

    82. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure that dangerous or rogue fusion reactors are quite capable of buring their way through the Earths crust and into the very Centre Of The Earth kicking off a reaction which would kill us all and end life as we know it in the Solar System.

    83. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      But if we put it all into one big project, it's more likely that we can develop a successful method sooner.

      Historically that has seldom been the case. In fact, it usually is better if you do it the other way around, and have multiple competing projects along more than one possible path.

      That is the thing with research. Until you try it, you really do not know if you can do it or not.

    84. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In the meantime, I'll support people like IFAW, WWF and carry on cycling.

      Yeah!! I also support the WWF - if they don't adopt envirnomentally friendly practices Stone Cold, the Rock and Hulk Hogan oughta teach 'em a thing or two!

      You did mean the World Wrestling Federation... right??

    85. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by CyBlue · · Score: 1

      It's not quite the same analogy. There's always better video technology coming out every few months and within a year whatever you buy will be old news. Nuclear fusion (if it works) would power the whole Earth safely and cheaply for a very long time. I guess you could say it already powers the Earth, we just want a more direct means instead of the Plant->fuel->steam->electricity method. Regarding the video card; I would wait because a month isn't too long to suffer to have what you really want instead of always bitching about barely adequate solutions.

    86. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      It may all be well and good not to lose energy, but it must produce a significant positive output to be useful as a power supply.

    87. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Retric · · Score: 1

      Umm, Computers, First Nukes, H-Bomb, Transistor, Graphical User Interface, Rockets ... Looks like for most "large" engendering projects having one big team works best.

      I can't think of any large novel engineering projects where several competing teams was all that fast. Once you need to build something large you need to pool all available recourses and start building as fast as possible.

    88. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by ffub · · Score: 1

      Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Animal rights groups in the UK. All trying to save the world with a baseball bat.

      Most of the professional protesters I know are just that, professional protesters!

      A conference I was recently at was attacked by Friends of the Earth. They threw dyed Yogurt (?!) at a speaker from a commodities company. Not a thought for the hosts of the conference, the other people they hit, the cost of all those suits, and the fact that breaking the law doesn't set a fabulous example.

      And yet I still consider myself a very eco minded person. I don't drive, recycle vigorously and encourage any enviromentally efficient technologies both in my workplace and socially. There are better ways to save the world than listen to eco-terrorists.

    89. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Retric · · Score: 1

      Peak Oil means what?

      If Oil prices go up then you start using other things in place of oil. You can make gas out of coal easily. Plastics out of vegetable oil. As to fertilizers well start dredging up any major river and you can get plenty of soil. Last I heard America would be fine with farming ~25% of the land we do now or being 25% as efficient with our land as we are now.

      You basically drop all beef production and start getting 10x as much food instead of that beef. Chicken is not as bad but by going to soy products you can get insanely more efficient food production. Of course we would also stop exporting food...

      Think of it this way. "All jet craft will stop functioning in 6 months." Ok now how much damage would that really do? I can still send email and you use trains / cars for freight anyway so what harm is that going to do? Umm, vacation destinations will be harmed at that's about it. O an no over night mail the horror!

      Oil is vary cheep and plentiful but it's hardly irreplaceable.

    90. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by jshine · · Score: 1

      "you must consider the energy budget of the entire process. This includes but is not limited to: the fabrication of the plant itself and all of its component parts, transportation of all of its component parts to the plant's location, etc."

      ...kinda like building thousands of giant wind turbines in the middle of the countryside, eh? Even the technology Greenpeace *likes* would require lots of diesel to construct.

    91. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by hikerhat · · Score: 2, Insightful
      By that line of thinking, our ancestors would never have bothered to develop the wheel, because carrying stuff on our back was "just good enough".

      Nope. By your "fusion will save us, even though we haven't made it work in the last 50 years, and it is always 50 years in the future, and we could have used that time to build solar sites, and wind sites, and tidal energy sites, and ..." line of thinking our ancestors would have a few wheels scattered around. But nobody would ever connect two with an axel to make a cart, because a few of them thought they might be able to make a hover car powered by farts, which is way better than a cart, and all the rest would just sit around waiting for the fart powered hover car. We would still be carrying stuff around on our backs, and anyone who suggested we just use a cart in the interim would be admonished for not just waiting for the fart powered hover cars.

    92. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
      How about "an expensive and senseless nuclear stupidity". ... "it will lead to a dead end" ... "the nuclear option stalls real action" ... & other tidbits

      I particularly like the quote from your reference: "Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste" Oh no HELIUM!!!.

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    93. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      Win what?

      do people even think for themselves anymore?

    94. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by 2short · · Score: 1

      Again, I have not looked at Greenpeace's position in any detail, so I'm not quallified to argue for or against it. My main point is that I think peoples analysis of the upside of ITER is hopelessly optimistic:

      "ITER: Potentially solve the world's energy problems for a long time"

      No, it won't. ITER might help us figure out how to use fusion to generate power. It will absolutely not produce an unlimited amount of power. And it will do nothing toward improving distribution of that power. Maybe, with a lot of work, we will figure out how to make a fusion power plant that produces significant amounts of power. Even then, we will have to go build a bunch of fusion plants all over the place.
      Maybe doing so will cost less up front per unit of capacity than current windfarms (seems unlikely, windfarms are pretty cheap up front).
      Maybe doing so will cost less per kW-hour generated than current windfarms (hopefully; wind farms are sucky on maintenance cost; certainly no reason to do fusion if it's not a lot cheaper)
      Maybe doing so will produce energy more "cleanly" than current windfarms (actually, no way. The results of fusion are non-radioactive only in textbooks).
      Maybe doing so will let us start adding significant new capacity twenty years from now (I'd guess fifty at a minimum; we can build windfarms now.)
      The positive effect of spending 10B euros on windfarms is depressingly small, I'll readily agree. I'm just saying, spending 10B on ITER might not even be as good as that; best case, it gets you in a position to really start spending money on fusion somewhere way down the line.

      10,000MW (sustained) does indeed sound like a lot. Especially when compared to 500MW for 8 minutes ten years from now: the hoped for output of ITER.

    95. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      You need to look up the term "research project" one of these days. Its depressing how short-sighted people have become.

    96. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by AdmiralWeirdbeard · · Score: 1

      heh, there is that...

      I think that the more one believes we're all fucked, the more likely one is to act like a twit to those who dont realize it yet.

      It would, of course, be a better use of their time and ours if they busied themselves protesting fission power, which on the merits of uranium mining alone, massively environmentally detrimental. But of course, if they used their time wisely, I suppose they wouldn't have been labled a fringe group...

      --
      Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
    97. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by AdmiralWeirdbeard · · Score: 1

      "...kinda like building thousands of giant wind turbines in the middle of the countryside, eh? Even the technology Greenpeace *likes* would require lots of diesel to construct."

      True, they do require a lot of diesel to construct. Drastically less, however than even a traditional coal or oil or gas-turbine powerplant. There is no such thing as a free ride. The benefit of turbines over other types of power generation is that each turbine is relatively inexpensive, and each is independent of its bretheren. Once the first one is up, its up and spinning, well, maybe they do them in tens, but you get my drift. It is a modular design that maximizes power generation. Like everythign else, however, its no silver bullet. Sometimes, the wind doesnt blow

      Incidentally, if you really wanted to be snarky AND knowing what you were talking about at the same time, you would have brought up photo-voltaics. They take as many as 10 or 15 years of use to recoup their energy costs, and are made through some pretty intensly toxic industrial processes. But, if we're gonna drive around on the back of a gasoline engine, I see no reason why we shouldnt have solar panels on every roof...

      --
      Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
    98. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
      Many of these combined several research teams under the same roof. But still, separate paths were pursued simultaneously. Less inspiring paths being terminated earlier on.

      There was more than one Nuke design, there was more than one H-Bomb design, Computers were more or less simultaneously and independently invented by more than one group, etc.

      You only pool all into one when you do not have enough resources to have separate teams.

    99. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by 2short · · Score: 1

      OK, my final sentence, comparing the wind farms output to that of ITER was completely unfair. I understand that the point of ITER is not the power it itself will produce, but the knowledge. And I'm all in favor of researching new ways to help with the worlds aproaching energy crisis. But I think it's crazy to suggest that all research projects are worth doing, regardless of their costs. And you can't make a good assesment of whether ITER is worth doing based on assuming it will be the ultimate answer to all our energy problems. At best, getting fusion workable might let us build nuke plants that are considerably cleaner than the ones we've got. But we'll still need to build, maintain, and operate the plants, and they still won't be entirely clean. It's not boundless free energy, even assuming all the research bears fruit. And it's a long way off regardless.
      I'm just saying it is not inherently unreasonable to suggest that spending the money on wind farms might be a better decision. It sure looks to me like energy demand vs. supply is going to reach a crisis point long before fusion is even potentially viable. Improving means of power production that currently work might well be a better call than trying to improve a means of power production that currently doesn't work at all. If ITER and a bunch more projects after that all work out spendidly, in several decades fusion might be as cost-effective an option as wind is today.
      Fusion is sexier than wind, and Greenpeace is a left-wing enviro-nut org. But they still may be right about ITER.

    100. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by Retric · · Score: 1

      I'm not certain, of course, but I think now is the time to seize it and fusion is a damn good gamble.

      Agree. US gov spends ~3,000billion a year this project will take ~1billion / year. I don't mind a 00.033% increase in my taxes if they spend money on this. But I guess someone might.

    101. Re:Let the E-Wars begin! by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

      Thats all fine and dandy as a checkpoint on the road to energy production, but it costs mega bucks to build that facility and you need a lot more than unity to get a return on the investment in the construction of the facility and upkeep costs.

      --
      Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
  2. someone tell france... by systemic+chaos · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    they've been duped

  3. Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy? by CyricZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Will this fusion plant usher in the foretold era of unlimited energy? I remember when those claims were made about nuclear power, about how it would be so cheap that it wouldn't be metered. That didn't happen with fission power, but perhaps it will happen with fusion power.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  4. When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by HMA2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From TFA:

    Greenpeace, for one, stated that "at a time when it is universally recognized that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Greenpeace considers it ridiculous to use resources and billions of euros on this project."

    I swear, I think Greenpeace is more concerned about making sure nobody builds any new powerplants than they are about protecting the environment.

    They are against new coal plants with modern scrubber technology, they are against fission plants, now they are against this expiremental fusion plant. Do they realize that humanity needs energy to live and thrive? Do they realize that by not building new more efficient powerplants they are forcing people to rely on older, more polluting powerplants more heavily?

    It seems counterintuitive to me, it's like they would rather stick their thumb in the eye of corporations than actually help the environment.

    1. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by DrEldarion · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think it's because Greenpeace, just like every other extremist organization (See also PETA), is full of complete whackos.

    2. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by TorKlingberg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I agree that building the ITER is a good idea, you are missreading Greenpeace a bit here. What they are saying is that it will take too long to get commercial fusion reactors (~50 y), so it might be too late to stop the greenhouse effect.

    3. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by mcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I swear, I think Greenpeace is more concerned about making sure nobody builds any new powerplants than they are about protecting the environment.

      I just find it funny that Greenpeace and such groups are probably doing more to promote fossil fuels-- far more harmful by almost every single possible measure than anything nuclear will ever be-- than they are in practice doing anything else at this point. Talk or harrass people out of using nuclear power and all that you're going to result in is people sticking with the existing coal and oil technology, which is both cost effective and for some reason (everyone's too used to it?) mostly leaves you free of protesters.

      The most publicity-effective coal lobby in the world is doing so in the name of the environment. Great thinking!

    4. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by October_30th · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Do they realize that humanity needs energy to live and thrive?

      That is, actually, something that really bugged me in the discussion of our natioanl fifth nuclear power plant. No-one ever questioned why we need more and more energy.

      So, why is a low growth rate or even zero-growth in energy consumption such an impossible idea? After all, we all know that infinite growth is an impossibility.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    5. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by DigiShaman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Well DUH!! Greenpeace is all about making sure nature still has checks and balances at keeping the human population from growing and/or less of a resource impact on Earth.

      Anything that will allow for human prosperity is anti-green as it threatens Mother Nature by virtue of our presence.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by DraconPern · · Score: 2, Informative
      I swear, I think Greenpeace is more concerned about making sure nobody builds any new powerplants than they are about protecting the environment.

      Actually, they do both. From Wikipedia
      Greenpeace's goal is to ensure the ability of the earth to nurture life in all its diversity.

      --
      Need a used Sprint charger?
    7. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they going to implement birth and consumption control? I.e. one kid per family, oh no you can't have more we're at our limit, no you can't buy whatever you want, etc etc... ? Otherwise, energy consumption is going to go up as the population grows, there's no way around it.

      Infinite growth is definitely an impossibility, but I really believe even our current level of use is unsustainable. All of our economies are tied directly to oil right now, and people are in for a shock when demand really surpasses supply and prices sky rocket above where they are now...

    8. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by chadm1967 · · Score: 2, Funny

      why was this give an "insightful" score? this is one of the most ignorant statements i've ever heard! because we (greenpeace) care about the environment, we're all crazy?

    9. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by peragrin · · Score: 1

      >>So, why is a low growth rate or even zero-growth in energy consumption such an impossible idea? After all, we all know that infinite growth is an impossibility.

      Um check the latest birth records. The world's population is growing in number by the size of the UK every single year.

      there are two solutions. One go to space and expand or two start shooting people.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    10. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by NardofDoom · · Score: 3, Informative
      Coal plants with scrubber technology do nothing to stop the release of greenhouse gasses or decrease our dependence on fossil fuels. I understand why Greenpeace is opposed to them.

      Fission plants produce material that can be used in weapons or remains hazardous for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. I can understand why Greenpeace is opposed to them.

      Fusion power plants have neither of these problems. They use water for fuel and produce material that isn't fissionable and is safe after about 50 years.

      However, they do give an excuse for governments, corporations and people to not move toward a safe, clean energy grid made up of wind, solar, biofuels and maybe fusion. From this reasoning I can understand why Greenpeace would have trepidation.

      Or they could not understand what nuclear fusion is and have a knee-jerk reaction.

      Either way, criticizing them as anti-progress is wrong. I was at one of their mercury testing events where they served coffee that was brewed with solar power. They're nice people, and the chicks were really cute.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    11. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all seriousness, Greenpeace, like PETA, was coopted by their opposition years ago...probably in the 80s.

      The idea is to take over an organization that you don't like, pretend to still be the same organization, do and say utterly absurd things so that nobody will take any part of 'your ideas' seriously any more and ignore genuine opportunities to have a real impact because...of course...you're really on the other side.

      Of course, nobody will admit it but it's common knowledge amongst my friends in DC who work for legitimate organizations that the big-name groups like Greenpeace, PETA, etc are utter and total bullshit. But what can they do? If they denounce the organizations then it only makes the whole cause look even worse...or it makes them look paranoid and conspiracy minded.

    12. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      It seems counterintuitive to me, it's like they would rather stick their thumb in the eye of corporations than actually help the environment.

      A lot of activist types are violently opposed to the only credible means to achieve the activists' stated goals. Anti-globalists come to mind. One can dream of all kinds of conspiracy theories to explain this situation, though Hanlon's Razor is probably sufficient.

    13. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Mad_Rain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are against new coal plants with modern scrubber technology, they are against fission plants, now they are against this expiremental fusion plant. Do they realize that humanity needs energy to live and thrive?

      Absolutely - which is why they advocate for safe technology (wind and solar power) that is economically and environmentally responsible in the present as opposed to 50 years down the road.

      I'm all in favor of developing fusion power and other alternatives, but why wait on utilizing some of the current (no pun) energy alternatives?

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    14. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by AtlanticCarbon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't agree with Greenpeace's view on nuclear energy but calling them extremists and pretending that is some sort of valid critique is not okay. I hate the "extremist" argument. Extreme positions and the people that have them are not bad in themselves. At one point or another many great ideas have been extreme and unpopular.

    15. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by jcdick1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Greenpeace is against building power plants because they are against the idea of humanity being so dominant. To many environmental groups, mankind is often seen as synonymous with a cockroach infestation. To these groups, any given tree or platypus has more of a right to be where it is than we, the humans, have to put in yet another road for our SUVs. We should be a partner with nature, not a overwhelming force dominating it. Nature has inherent value beyond being a resource to be exploited, manipulated or eliminated. The more extreme groups would really like to see mankind return to a agrarian society, thereby "sticking the thumb" at corporations *and* helping the environment.

      This is being devil's advocate, of course, but the response to your question about humanity needing to live and thrive is "At what point does humanity say 'enough is enough'?" That is Greenpeace and Co.'s rationalization.

      --
      What?
    16. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by October_30th · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Um check the latest birth records.

      Uh. That's not really a problem in countries that consume the most energy and cry for more. Wasteful consumption and public contempt for any conservation efforts (just witness all the dismissive comments under this article) are the worst problems. But I don't really care anymore; we, as a human race, will get what we deserve. Too bad it will be the future generations who'll end up paying for our spending.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    17. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by josecanuc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Fusion power plants have neither of these problems. They use water for fuel and produce material that isn't fissionable and is safe after about 50 years.

      Is it reasonable to compare current power-generation technologies to Fusion? The reason Fusion power plants don't have either of these problems is that there aren't any fusion power generation plants in existence!

      The chances are that once we do have viable fusion power generation, there may be a down-side or two. But we won't know these negative aspects, or even if there will be any negatives at all to Fusion power until we actually have it delivered.

      I guess that's just common sense, though.

    18. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Because we want our economics to grow rather then stagnat?

      Plus pretty soon fossil fuels are going to start becoming real expensive, new clean long lasting sources of energy are going to be needed.

    19. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Cryogenes · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they simply don't believe it's going to work. Thirty years ago I (yes I am that old) I learned in highschool that fission was still thirty years away. Now they say it's fifty.

      I have as little sympathy for Greenpeace as for those who call Greenpeace extremists (hey, why not terrorists?), but neither do I trust any scientist who asks for thirteen billion dollars in exchange for promising results in 50 years.

    20. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      well.. we will be burning up our water and turning it into helium.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    21. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how comes most employees of greenpeace are marketing and managment type of people?

    22. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by mph · · Score: 1
      Or maybe they simply don't believe it's going to work. Thirty years ago I (yes I am that old) I learned in highschool that fission was still thirty years away. Now they say it's fifty.
      And that's just about right, although it's now more like 60 years since the Manhattan Project. But close enough.

      Fusion, on the other hand, is 8.5 minutes away.

    23. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by PaxTech · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      At one point or another many great ideas have been extreme and unpopular.

      And many more TERRIBLE ideas have been extreme and unpopular.

      Greenpeace, like many so-called "environmental" groups, are nothing but luddites.

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    24. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      Ding. Mod parent up.

    25. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah, they're just a completely innocent organization that couldn't possibly be considered extreme. Blockading naval bases, ramming America's cup boats, and invading Exxon and nuclear plant buildings should be considered perfectly normal behavior for any group.

    26. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Absolutely - which is why they advocate for safe technology (wind and solar power) that is economically and environmentally responsible in the present as opposed to 50 years down the road.

      Except that solar and wind simply aren't capable of providing enough power to meet even the inelastic parts of the demand curve.

    27. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by amliebsch · · Score: 4, Informative
      No-one ever questioned why we need more and more energy.

      Fundamentally, it is because of human desire for progress. Virtually all progress involves decreasing local entropy for some purpose, whether it is to manufacture a product or send an ordered byte stream. All reductions of local entropy - that is, movement away from thermodynamic equilibrium, require an expenditure of energy. Thus progress - indeed, all of human civilization - I guess even all of life - requires energy input. We require more because we desire to decrease our local entropy.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    28. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by sharkey · · Score: 1
      (See also PETA)

      Mmmmmm, People Eating Tasty Animals.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    29. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is still a stupid statement being that research on ITER and other solutions are not mutually exclusive.

    30. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Too bad it will be the future generations who'll end up paying for our spending.

      Future generations? If you expect to be living around 2020 (according to the oil industry) or 2010-2013 (according to others), we'll be paying ourselves.

    31. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by beach_mon · · Score: 1
      Well said.

      Unfortunately, Greenpeace's position on this one shows ignorance.

      Now, would it be good if the 4.5 billion euros were used for some other purpose, say saving starving children, or building wind generators? Quite possibly. Will the sponsors of this project give 4.5 billion euros to starving children in Africa? I'll leave that for you to answer.

      People are greedy for (electric) power. Until we have a fundamental culture shift, or the population growth levels off (projection: 70 years), world power consumption WILL grow, period. I'm not even including the fact that power consumption per-capita is going to go up.

      So, in answer to greenpeace, yes, I wish that humans had their priorities straight, too, and yes, this power plant will not make an immediate dent at a measley rate of 500MW (France alone consumes 500 billion kWh. Wind farms would give us a more immediate bonus. I would like to see more windfarms, too, but in the long run, I think that fusion will give us a better energy output per square kilometer used. We need to do it eventually, and I'd rather we start now. Hopefully some political genius could use the existance of fusion power to get countries to lower their stockpiles of nukes (fission-based). Well, I can dream, anyway.

    32. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by jafac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I swear, I think Greenpeace is more concerned about making sure nobody builds any new powerplants than they are about protecting the environment.

      What's truly tragic, is that their position is represented by the Limbaughs and O'Reilly's of the world as "the mainstream Liberal position".

      Frankly, I would much rather have seen the $300 Billion US we've spent in Iraq (so far) instead, spent on Fusion research in the US. If the Fusion research succeeds, then there's no fucking reason to go to Iraq or any other damn Middle Eastern country ever. I think THAT is closer to the mainstream Liberal position than the Greenpeace drivel.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    33. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Twanfox · · Score: 1

      Fusion plants based on similar techniques as the sun (magnetic bottle, high temp fusion) is likely to produce radioactive materials even still. Depending on the fuel that is used, free neutrons are generated from various fusion processes. Those neutrons may wind up as catalysts to further the reaction (via breeding tritium from lithium), or they may wind up escaping the magnetic bottle and striking the insulating walls of the reactor core.

      The flip side of this is that what radioactive materials are produced is controllable, to an extent.

    34. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Mad_Rain · · Score: 1

      Except that solar and wind simply aren't capable of providing enough power to meet even the inelastic parts of the demand curve.

      You seem to imply that this project will meet that demand - which it might, but only after 50 years of construction, research and development. Solar and wind power can do a little something now; what really needs to change are our priorities and behavior as a global society. But that's as likely to happen as... well, as likely to happen as cold fusion. ;)

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
    35. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by jafac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. Because you (greenpeace) put the environment above people.

      The whole point of environmentalism is to preserve a sustainable habitat for OUR species. That includes protecting other species - it even probably includes limiting our own growth. But to an outsider, that sounds like "exterminate all humans and let the snowy plover live in peace".

      That's not a meme that's going to gain wide acceptance among the sane and rational. But whatever floats your "Rainbow Warrior".

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    36. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by patonw · · Score: 1

      I think their concern is that the problem is too dire to wait a few decades for a long term solution to be viable and that the current situation will cause irreparable harm. Thus in the mean time we need to allocate more funding towards reducing the problem to sustainable levels.

      That of course makes many assumptions about the current situation and how the environment will react.

    37. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by danila · · Score: 1

      Read "Overload" by Arthur Hailey. It's got a great description (in a fictionalised context) of the issues surrounding power generation. Environmentalism stopped being rational decades ago, now it's just about getting publicity through creating an impression that you are tough. In some cases the actions of Greenpeach, PETA and other similar pseudo-green organisations might accidentally do some good, but then I expect that Philip Morris, Shell and Monsanto do something good some of the time too.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    38. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by jafac · · Score: 1

      how do they propse that we handle the human population growth issue?

      gas chambers?

      mandated sterilization?


      College education for all women. . . ?
      (statistically speaking, it's by far, the most effective birth control known to man.)

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    39. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by D.+Book · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I swear, I think Greenpeace is more concerned about making sure nobody builds any new powerplants than they are about protecting the environment.

      The Reuters article is not very balanced, and your post reflects this. Here's how the BBC decided to quote Greenpeace:

      Some green groups criticised Tuesday's announcement as a waste of money. They are doubtful whether Iter will ever deliver practical technologies.

      "With 10 billion [euros], we could build 10,000MW offshore windfarms, delivering electricity for 7.5 million European households," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International.

      "Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy. Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today."


      Sounds a bit more reasonable, whether you agree with that position or not.

      I think your post was a bit of a cheap shot designed to appeal to the current Slashdot groupthink. It wasn't all that long ago Microsoft-bashing was the favourite karma whoring method. Now that blatantly one-sided criticism of Microsoft is passe, the Greenpeaces and PETAs of the world have become our favourite whipping boys :-/
    40. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by BlueStraggler · · Score: 1
      Because we want our economics to grow rather then stagnat?

      More accurately, we want our quality of life to grow, and this is partly connected to wealth, which is partly connected to economics. However, note that economics is two steps removed from quality of life, and they don't necessarily go hand in hand. The classic example is a widget factory that dumps its pollution into the river, causing cancer and environmental damage. Now, the widgets are sold for $X, and the environmental cleanup costs $Y and the cancer treatments cost $Z. The total benefit to the economy is the money that gets spent, ie. $(X+Y+Z), but the benefit to quality of life is clearly $(X-Y-Z).

    41. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Spackler · · Score: 1

      If that will be too late to stop it, why don't they do something about it? All they need to do is start building wind and solar plants, and start selling the energy! Greenpeace Power Company at your service. Let these self serving dweebs be the man and stick it to themselves.

    42. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by sl3xd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The flaw of the argument is also quite typical:

      Just because the IETR gets funding doesn't mean that other forms of energy development is going to even slow down.

      It's not only possible, but desirable to fund many different energy projects; simply trying to throw more resources at any particular problem doesn't necessarily mean that it will get finished any faster.

      The greenpeace argument depends on the belief that somehow all scientists are equal, and you can take any metallurgist, and he'll magically be an immediate expert in nuclear physics. The fact is that each area of energy development is highly specialized; taking decades to learn the dicipline; you can't just take the people working on the ITER and move them to solar power, and expect them to work their best; first you insult them by telling them their life's work is worth nothing, then you force them to do something they don't like.

      It would also have a terrible effect on scientific morale; why start a promising new branch of research at all; you won't be able to prove your theories anyway!

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    43. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      What they are saying is that it will take too long to get commercial fusion reactors (~50 y), so it might be too late to stop the greenhouse effect.

      So... If it takes too long, they won't help, but if it doesn't, they will. And they wish to take away this chance of it helping quickly enough... why? What's there to loose? Fusion power is a clean energy source.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    44. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by cduffy · · Score: 1

      You seem to imply that this project will meet that demand

      That was an unintentional implication. I don't know what will meet the demand -- though I think orbiting solar collectors are perhaps one of the most promising options (perhaps storing the energy they collect in the form of antimatter -- in this, I largely subscribe to Robert Forward's views), I don't honestly expect to see such a project funded and succesfully implemented on the necessary scale.

    45. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by bitrott · · Score: 1

      That's just... so stupid. This is the kind mentality that passes itself off as 'funny' and 'insightful', when really, you have no evidence. You think you do, because you've put them in a little 'bad box' in your head. You can't see your way to understanding them, or their motivations, so you assume the worst.

      Usually this is not the case. Many environmentalists, Greenpeace members included, do not think of Humans as 'cockroaches'. How asinine!

    46. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative
      hazardous for hundreds of thousands or millions of years

      Nitpick: The longer the half-life, the fewer decays per unit time. Stuff that's dangerous for a couple of days is far, far more dangerous than the basically stable elements you mentioned.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    47. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we don't keep those religious zelots in check in the ME (and they do want the distruction of western civilization, can't argue it any other way), eventually an atomic bomb will be smuggled in.

      Let me tell you something, it's going to cost a shitload more then $300 billion to cleanup a leveled city and the ramifications there-of in the future. Not to mention the millions of lives lost....

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    48. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by timeOday · · Score: 0, Troll
      Tell me more about Iraq's nuclear program.

      I didn't think so.

    49. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Iraq was just a pawn in grand scheme of things. We needed a stratigic place on the global chess board in order to when this war against islamic fantics. In order achive the goal, you must look beyond Iraq.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    50. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

      Iraq's nuclear program was pretty much stalled already. Libya's was moving ahead until Gadaffi voluntarily dismanted it. Iran's still is.

    51. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      for some reason (everyone's too used to it?) mostly leaves you free of protesters.

      No kidding. If somebody just now came up with the idea of burning coal to produce electricity the protesters would be lined up around the block.

    52. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Kafka_Canada · · Score: 1

      So the mainstream liberal position is a pipedream by way of massive pork-barrel projects that won't do a thing for anyone for several decades?

      --
      Fuck it
    53. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Returning to agrarian society would kill lots of people. So GP is against overpopulation or even against modern levels of population on Earth. I'd advise them to move to Asia, where the overpopulation problem begins. But they keep nagging to the West, beacuse Westerners are stupid and actualy willing to listen to their drivel.

    54. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      actually, wind power can replace the energy needs of the US, we just need to place the turbines in the right places and put enough of them out there.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    55. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      And the war in Iraq stopped this... how?

      Oh, BTW, I have a rock that repels tigers. Wanna buy it?

    56. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      The thing i haven't seen mentioned anywhere, that there is an already working test reactor in Great Britain.

      Since it's only a test tokamak reactor it actually consumes power instead of producing it, but i believe that it's today's technology. The only limiting power about fusion reactors is size: there has to be a certain size reached when building these reactors to have actually self-sustaining reaction and energy output instead of requiring energy. I believe there was a slashdot story about this last year, but i cba to look up what i've posted it there about it.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    57. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by PhotoGuy · · Score: 1

      I think it's because Greenpeace, just like every other extremist organization (See also PETA), is full of complete whackos.

      Yes, thank God for groups like SlashDot.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    58. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Iraq was just a pawn in grand scheme of things. We needed a stratigic place on the global chess board in order to when this war against islamic fantics. In order achive the goal, you must look beyond Iraq.

      Yeah, like Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Djibouti, Uzbekistan... lessee, where else does that US have a strategic place on the global chess board that can be used against Islamic fanatics? (for all the hype, I don't think the US actually has forces in Israel)

    59. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by mpaque · · Score: 2, Insightful

      CAUTION: Post contains politically incorrect crimethink.

      which is why they advocate for safe technology (wind and solar power) that is economically and environmentally responsible

      Note that wind power, particularly high density sited systems capable of powering more than a farmhouse, have their own consequences: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/ bdes/altamont/altamont.html

      Solar installations raise similar issues, related primarily to siting. The best solar power generation locations are those with little overcast, relatively close to the equator. That makes the Southwest United States a good location, but the combination of all that construction and the permanent shading of huge regions of the desert will be fought as causing more ecological damage.

      Yes, solar power sats and a microwave downlink to an 'antenna farm' would cause much less damage. The land under the antenna grid can be safely farmed, and the power density (watts/square foot) would be lower than direct sunlight. That won't stop the 'deadly microwave radiation' . http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2004/Electroma gnetic-Fields-EMF1jun04.htm (Note that Arthur is someone who would be much better off if he took his medication. Seriously.)

      I think alternate energy sources, from wind and geothermal though powersats, AND nuclear fission plants, would be a good thing. Never assume that the politically correct choice will be the best one, though, or that it will be blessed by all.

    60. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The war in Iraq increased the danger of a nuclear attack. Pakistan has nukes and most Alqueda are in Pakistan and now also in Iraq. There was no Alqueda in Iraq before the war. Before 9/11 the Taliban was supported only by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and OAE. The population of all these countries is heavily anti-American now because of Iraq. And Pakistan has nukes - officialy - no one is even trying to remove them. It's not clear for how long the governments of the said countries can hold their people back. One thing is sure - the new Iraqi government cannot hold theirs. If there is an attack it would come from one of the above countries or from the "liberated", Alqueda-infested Iraq. The administration is after something else in Iraq. The oil prices were and still are rising due to the rise of China and its consumption levels. Certain important people want to be the extractors, the middlemen and distributors of that pricy oil, and take most of the proceeds in the process. The Iraq war is not in the interest of national security. Rather it's a boon for the security industry which now spends present and future TAX money by the trackload.

    61. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by fade-in · · Score: 1
      They're nice people, and the chicks were really cute.

      I thought they would be opposed to animal testing

      --
      This sig is inappropriate in a post-9/11 world.
    62. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      on what details do you base that? did you make the falacy of comparing the total output per yeah that could be made by turbines on those sites with the total consumption per year of the US?

      one of the biggest problems with wind is that it provides neither base load power (constant power 24/7) nor power on demand. so adding wind power means you need more generating stations that can work well on demand which tend to be more expensive types to run.

      the other alternative is energy storage but that tends to be very expensive too.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    63. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Shihar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We need more energy today because there are more things I want. Outside it is about 90 F. 50 years ago I would have flop down naked on my bed and sweat myself to sleep. Instead, I have a nice wall mounted AC to blast cold air at my bed. 50 years ago I would be listening to a little radio or reading a book. Not that I still don't enjoy the later activity, but I also like my computer, which currently sounds like a jet engine as the fans on it are trying desperately to keep it cool despite the horrid temperature of my apartment (AC is only in my bedroom). I drive to work which is roughly 30 miles away - an almost unspeakable distance to travel every day a 100 years ago. I got an MRI a couple years ago when I had a pain in my side. I have a flushing toilet. I have a cell phone, a laptop, a printer, a dishwasher, a washing machine, and a dryer.

      Every single one of these things takes energy. Now, if you really think it is our duty to live without those things, let me point you to your nearest third world nation where you can spend the rest of your life not consuming more and more energy. The simple fact of the matter is that as time moves forward, so will technology. If you want to reap the rewards of that technological progression, you will need to consume energy.

      Could we simply just stop and say enough is enough? Perhaps you could, but most people won't. In the same way your parents or grand parents gave up washing clothes by hand for the convince of it and now you would likely never give up the convince, so to will you accept technology and raise children who will refuse to give it up... and that is to say nothing of the BILLIONS of people in this world that don't even have what you have, see what you do, and demand the same thing. If you want to talk about an environmental disaster in the making, picture 5 billion other people in this world that don't have the same standard of living as you who will not be content remain have nots.

      Technology is the only answer. 6+ billion people living like Americans, or even Europeans can not be sustained. Those people WILL rise. We can either have clean technology to meet their energy needs when they get here, or watched the number of dirty energy producing plants in this world rise exponentially. Personally, I would rather see us working towards technological solutions to meet the demands that will come, rather then watch as 5 billion people go through another messy industrial revolution.

    64. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So since communists were some of the first fighting for civil rights in the '50's, means all civil rights advocates now are commies?

    65. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by bitrott · · Score: 1

      That was a really un-informed and un-informative response. I'm reeling.

    66. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Dausha · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "To many environmental groups, mankind is often seen as synonymous with a cockroach infestation. To these groups, any given tree or platypus has more of a right to be where it is than we, the humans, have to put in yet another road for our SUVs."

      Those who have this view should put their money where their mouths are--the should kill themselves to reduce the human "infestation." Or, they should realize that if we are an infestation that we will take care of ourselves and Nature will go on.

      I think many of these groups are socialist groups trying to thwart any growth of capitalism by stymying any productivity.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    67. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by rsynnott · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Always-on wind and solar? We'll need at least some fossil or (preferably) nuclear power for a very, very long time.

      --
      Me (Blog)
    68. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by hgh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There was a good article at issues.org discussing the stigma attached to nuclear power arising due to groups such as greenpeace sensationalizing the debate. By getting scared away from nuclear, we've only increased our coal consumption.

      http://www.issues.org/issues/21.3/lorenzini.html

      hgh

    69. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you're spending precious seconds thinking about what Greenpeace wants, then you have already lost.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    70. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by servognome · · Score: 1

      However, they do give an excuse for governments, corporations and people to not move toward a safe, clean energy grid made up of wind, solar, biofuels and maybe fusion.

      Wind that can alter weather patterns and slice up birds, solar which requires large amounts of chemicals to make, and biofuels which still emit green house gases.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    71. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Pakaran2 · · Score: 1

      As regards the middle east.... You can have a fusion reactor, or a perpetual motion reactor, and still need compact energy storage for cars.

      As it stands, a given amount of energy is much cheaper as electricity compared to gasoline. But gasoline (or diesel, which is also a fossil fuel) motor vechicles are the overwhelming majority. The reason is the lack of heavy batteries, and the small engines compared to power that allow fast acceleration. If fusion power were *free*, I'm not convinced everyone would go to electric cars, or stop using fossil fuel based cars. To be sure, eventually it might be economical to manufacture the hydrocarbon fuels rather than drill for them, but I don't think we'd suddenly be able to tell the middle east to screw themselves.

      On a more practical line of reasoning, fission *provides* cheap electricity that doesn't cause global warming, doesn't pollute the atmosphere, and as for the waste issue, it's *minor* compared to the acid rain issue with coal power. I can't believe the US has stopped building fission plants.

    72. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Mspangler · · Score: 1

      They are not so much anti-energy as they are pro-poverty. I think they want everyone back to the 1870's, but with vaccinations this time. There is an awful lot of pining for the joys of working on your 10 acre subsistance farm, then doing handicrafts for sale in town (to them I guess) in your copious spare time.

      I grew up on a farm, and don't remember much spare time. I'll take my job as a metallurgist anytime. And if the squash bugs wipe out the garden, well, at least I won't starve.

      On a related question, when are the Courts coing to realize that Nature-worship is a religion and use the First Amendment to close them down a few turns?

    73. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Kenrod · · Score: 1


      It was destroyed on June 7, 1981 by Israeli pilots flying 8 American-made F-16s.

      Saddam tried to restart the program in secret over the next decade. After the Gulf War it seems he abandoned the idea of nuclear weaponry, but never fully cooperated with UN inspectors in proving he had a change of heart. While he did not have biological, chemical, or nuclear arms, he did in fact have banned conventional arms that were not found until after March 2003.

      He could have easily come clean, like Khadafi allegedly has in Libya, but allowing complete, free access to weapons inspectors. But he thought the French would protect him in the UN Security Council, so he continued to stonewall inspectors, and he continued to make the world think he might have banned arms as a bargaining chip, and to save face at home.

      He did not act wisely.

      --
      Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    74. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by toddestan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In order achive the goal, you must look beyond Iraq.

      Exactly. So why are we in Iraq again?

    75. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      true but because its only dangerous for a relatively short period disposal is pretty easy.

      ofc some stuff actually decays into stuff that is more radioactive than the original material so to start with the radioactivity of a fairly pure sample actually rises.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    76. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Richthofen80 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nature has inherent value beyond being a resource to be exploited, manipulated or eliminated

      To say that Nature has an inherent value apart from humans is a fallicy.

      For anything to have value, one must say of value to whom? Values and judgements and ideas and theories all fail to exist without someone or something to HAVE Those values. Without mankind, the planet could burn. Does a dead planet like mars have the same value? Do we weep when a supernova destroys an empty, lifeless system of planets who all have no life or atmosphere? Of course not.

      Nature is , really, how things are, sans-humans. The natural state, the original state. but given that our means of survival is not automatic, that we as humans must master our environment in order to survive, (not trust instinct or use some special evolved strength or appendage) means that humans cannot just leave things as is and expect to survive.

      --
      Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
    77. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by incom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What does Iraq have to do with WMD's? And religious zealots in the bible belt are already actively destroying eastern civilization, with bombs, and have even done a media test about the use of atomic bombs(tactical nukes anyone). Overall you took down a country that wasn't harbouring those evil terrorists (try saudi arabia and pakistan next time), and created many more violent enemies(ala batman syndrome).

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    78. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 1

      For all these people who think humans are cockroaches and are destroying the enviornment. Where do you think these people live? Most probably want to live in "nature" as it was intended so I go out and cut down 20 trees and build a house for them in the hills overlooking that disgusting city you hate so much, hypocrites.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    79. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by crayz · · Score: 1

      And the United States did?

    80. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by DigiShaman · · Score: 0, Troll

      You are wrong on so many accounts it's rather scary.

      1. The bible belt has nothing to do with the distruction of eastern civilization. If anything, you will find most if not all major global terrorist activity by religious zelots are those who practice the faith of Islam. That is a fact.

      2. Iraq not only was, but still IS harbouring terrorists. In fact, Al Qaeda even said so as much. And their main reason for being there is to explicitly prevent democrocy as it goes against the faith of Islam (their words, not mine).

      3. As for violent enemies, they are already there. However, now we know what it takes to identify, isolate, and expunge them from society that wishes to do harm to innocent civilians. Remember, we are not at war with Iraq. We are at war with Islamic radicals on Iraqi soil. Keep that in mind next time you hear of a bombing at local mosque...again *sigh*.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    81. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's truly tragic, is that their position is represented by the Limbaughs and O'Reilly's of the world as "the mainstream Liberal position".

      Not unlike Limbaugh and O'Reilly are used as examples of conservitism. The extremists on any side will attempt to lump the nonextremists into simple categories to play numbers games with and attack straw men all day long.

    82. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by vondo · · Score: 1

      It's "nucular" and therefore evil. There is nothing else you need to know.

    83. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "At what point does humanity say 'enough is enough'?"

      If humanity can outpace nature, why isn't humanity destined to be the new force of evolution instead of blind natural selection? "Enough" will be the heat death of the universe or particle decay.

    84. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DESTRUCTION goddammit, not distruction.

    85. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by timbo234 · · Score: 1

      "With 10 billion [euros], we could build 10,000MW offshore windfarms, delivering electricity for 7.5 million European households," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. [From the BBC story linked with the article]

      I think that just shows how ridiculous their position on this is. 10 billion to power just 7.5 million homes. How many people are there in the EU? About 400 million? Even assuming 3 people per household that's still only 22.5 million people out of 400 million.

      If I was an EU taxpayer I'd rather see my 10 billion go to something that is actually targeted at the kind of large-scale power generation our society needs. Its only extremists like Greenpeace who think that every or $ available should be desperately plowed into any scheme with the word 'renewable' on it wether its able or not, in practice, to produce the levels of energy that we need.

      For god's sake Greenpeace look past your noses and give up your religious and irrational fear of the 'N' word. You're head's are as far into the sand of pure ideaology as the 'if I can't see it its not happening' US Republican party is towards global warming..

      --
      Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
    86. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ITER will cost around 4.57 billion euros to build, and billions more to run [1]. If it is built at Cadarache [2], Europe's contribution to this is estimated at 2.4 billion euros for construction and 2.2 billion euros for operation.

      Even the most optimistic assumptions estimate that fusion will not be available as a commercial generating option until 2050.

      "Pursuing nuclear fusion and the ITER project is madness," said Bridget Woodman of Greenpeace. "Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident. Why is Europe backing a bad energy option, with no prospect of operation in the near future, when alternative, environmentally acceptable options for electricity generation exist now? Renewable energy has massive potential, yet the EU continues to plough billions of euros in research and development grants into nuclear fusion."

      The most recent research Framework Programme allocates 750 million euros for fusion R&D, compared to 810 million euros for all other non-nuclear energy options combined (energy efficiency and fossil fuel research, as well as renewables). If the same funds were invested in renewables as on the ITER project, at least 10,000 MW of offshore wind could be built worldwide [3]. Europe's financial contribution to ITER could build nearly 5,000 MW of offshore wind - enough to power over four million homes.

    87. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      We require more because we desire to decrease our local entropy.

      If you check the thermodynamics, just about every technology we have uses at least a million times more energy than is needed for this purpose. Most use much more than that. It's a nice idea, but we are a very long way from hitting that limit.

    88. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by guybarr · · Score: 1

      The only limiting power about fusion reactors is size:

      Wrong. The limiting factor are plasma instabilities, which limit the time that the plasma can be contained (lookup Lawson Criterion)). This is true for both ICF and MCF.

      Commercially (and eneregtically) viable controlled fusion is not just a technological problem, it turned out to be an extremely hard scientific one. In fact, I've heard from several Plasma-physics profs that the ITER approach is considered by many professionals as LESS likely to succeed than ICF (google for fusion, indirect-drive, and Z-Pinch).

      -- and yes, I was a Plasma-physics student. I did my Masters on a Z-Pinch machine, not on a Tokamak, though.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    89. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      If we don't keep those religious zelots in check in the ME (and they do want the distruction of western civilization, can't argue it any other way), eventually an atomic bomb will be smuggled in.

      "If we don't keep those religious zelots in check in the USA (and they do want the distruction of western secular society, can't argue it any other way), eventually all our freedoms will be subjugated by the Church[1]"

      Oops . . . too late. :-(

      [1]But probably SOMEONE ELSES church, not YOURS

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    90. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by josecanuc · · Score: 1

      Hey, since you claim to know about plasma-physics...

      From what I know, the ways that we get power (electricity mostly?) from nuclear reactions is to extract the heat produced.

      If your hot, fusing plasma is contained in a magnetic field, how do you extract the heat from it?

      Obviously our first step is to make a self-sustaining fusion reaction, but I hope (and know, really) that SOMEONE is thinking about how to make it commercially viable.

      I just want to know what those people are thinking. :-)

    91. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by hikerhat · · Score: 1
      Greenpeace is fighting these pie in the sky red herrings because the power industry uses them as excuses to continue burning fossile fuels. Of course clean fusion power would be a great thing, but we probably won't see it before we burn up all the fossile fuels (why would the energy industry want to make all the remaining oil unprofitable?).

      What greenpeace wants is for people to take steps to reduce fossil fuel usage now, using technology we have now (higher gas milage in cars, insulating houses, solar, wind) and by making behavioural changes we can make now (walk or bike, rather than drive, for example). We can't wait for clean fusion energy. That's what the energy industry wants you to do. Because while you are waiting you are buying their gas.

    92. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      If the GP was scary then you are terrifying.

      1. The UK has seen far more terrorist activity from Catholics vs Protestants in the last 30 years than from any Islamic groups.

      2. Iraq was not harbouring terrorists but it's interesting that you accept the word of Al Qaeda, the terrorists you say you are fighting, that there were. There are more terrorists in Iraq now because the country is completely unstable.

      3. You have an interesting method of fighting terrorism then; create a scenario guaranteed to produce more terrorist recruits and ignoring the real original terrorist groups that were the route cause of all this.

    93. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by AtliF · · Score: 1

      Which is funny, because the reason for capitalism existing in the first place is the scarcity of resources. It's simply a distribution method.

      Today, the only significant scarcity is energy. The price of a product is mostly determined by the amount of energy used to create it (although factors like currency values, taxes, etc. also affect it). Time spent on development/production could also be counted as a pricing factor, but after all, time is just another form of energy.

      With unlimited energy and therefore unlimited production capacity, the need for capital becomes diminutive. Most tasks requiring labor would be automated due to energy abundance, and scarcity would all but disappear, along with the foundation of capitalism. In terms of supply and demand, supply would approach infinity.

      Shouldn't socialists embrace unlimited energy sources?

    94. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by jafac · · Score: 1

      First off, I think it's HIGHLY unlikely that the terrorists would EVER get ahold of a nuke. As long as we're careful about proliferation.

      With fusion energy, oil loses much of it's value. (not ALL of course, it's the primary feedstock for about 90% of the chemical industry. . .) - with that loss in value, comes the absolute destruction of the economies, and industrial capacities of these nations, along with the elimination of any capability of a nuclear weapons program. Their only chance at attaining this kind of capability is through an effort at industrialization by educating their people - which will eliminate fundamentalism, which is the product of ignorance. It's the combination of fundamentalism and oil money (which tends to end up concentrated in few, corrupt hands, rather than distributed amongst the workers) that is the threat. Remove those two factors, and we have an industrialized, fusion-powered, moderate ally, instead of a backwards, religious, suicide-bomber factory. End of threat. Force alone simply can't solve all problems.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    95. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by jafac · · Score: 1

      He could have easily come clean, like Khadafi allegedly has in Libya, but allowing complete, free access to weapons inspectors. But he thought the French would protect him in the UN Security Council, so he continued to stonewall inspectors, and he continued to make the world think he might have banned arms as a bargaining chip, and to save face at home.

      No - Saddam had to keep playing "tough" for the Iranians. Otherwise, how much longer do you think the Sunni minority would have maintained control over the Shiite majority, with Shiite-run neighboring Iraq, and constant squabbles over access to their common waterway, the Shat Al Arab? Not long. Saddam didn't have much of a choice.

      (and he did begin cooperating with inspectors prior to the US invasion. He destroyed missiles, opened sites previously blocked, etc. But was unable to comply with documentation requests. Bush didn't turn in his Harken stock-sale paperwork on time, and the SEC cut him some slack.)

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    96. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by jcdick1 · · Score: 1

      I was just playing devil's advocate, but here would be an interesting read, perhaps...

      http://ejap.louisiana.edu/EJAP/1995.spring/callico tt.1995.spring.htmlA

      --
      What?
    97. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by jafac · · Score: 1

      I can't believe the US has stopped building fission plants.

      Me neither! I think we should start building them again. Is there room in YOUR back yard?

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    98. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Retric · · Score: 1

      Big Oil wants you to increase your efficiency so you increase the value of their oil and keep paying for it over time. A tank of gas is worth more in an 80MPG car than a 30MPG car. Big oil loves the idea of everyone buying tiny cars and paying ever more money for their diminishing oil supplies for the next 100 years.

      When fusion shows up and Oil become worthless then Exxon is out of business but they can keep selling gas in a "Wind" economy.

    99. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that
      1) altamont is the most deadly wind farm and
      2) this is largely because of its location in a valley used as a migratory route, which could obviously be considered and avoided and
      3) 1,300 is an incredibly tiny number compared to the number killed by most human developments.

      The point that wind farmers have not implemented known methods for preventing raptor deaths is quite valid, but also indicates that the number of deaths could be reduced even more.

      Since the only two arguments -against- wind power are bird deaths (a tiny effect) and unsightliness (because coal plants look awesome) I think wind power is a actually a quite viable method of providing clean power. Not -all- our power, but that's no reason not to build more of them. Every bit of clean energy we produce is less dirty energy needed.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    100. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you really have won a war with islamic fanatics. Do you really believe that?

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    101. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by cybpunks3 · · Score: 1

      Sterilization is the answer.

    102. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 1

      I don't understand you.

      1. You say "The UK has seen far more terrorist activity from Catholics vs Protestants in the last 30 years than from any Islamic groups."

      So? The grandparent wasn't just talking about the UK. He said, in quite clear English: "You will find most if not all major global terrorist activity by religious zelots are those who practice the faith of Islam. That is a fact."

      Besides, I seem to remember the UK moving quite aggressively against said terrorists. Obviously, there were downsides against doing so, but the people of the UK clearly understood that the alternatives had even bigger downsides.

      2. It gets even weirder. You say "Iraq was not harbouring terrorists." Uhhh, excuse me, do you ever read the papers? Perhaps the name Abu Nidal means something to you? No? How about Abbu Abbas? How about Saddam's payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers? Or do you feel they don't "count" because, technically, they weren't in Iraq? In that case I have bad news: another definition of "harbour" is "to nourish."

      The fact is, Saddam was up to his eyeballs in terrorism. You can make an argument that the extent of his ties with Al Qaeda, specifically, are unclear, but then I would argue that those ties, specifically, are not as important (to Americans, anyway) as many Europeans seem to think they are.

      3. Yeah, and our invasion of Nazi Germany resulted in more Germans taking up arms against us as well. And UK action against the IRA meant more thugs came out of their pubs and into the street to commit crimes. I mean, so? Are you saying that the possiblity of creating more terrorists should deter us from fighting those who already exist? Do you allow you fear to dictate your actions? Does that seem, in the long-term, like a wise course of action?

      Don't take this as criticism -- I'm trying to *help* you by pointing out that none of these arguments make *sense*. Here's another one -- you say we're "ignoring the real original terrorist groups that were the route (root?) cause of all this." The only person who would believe this is one who was deliberately blinding himself to reality. The U.S. went after Al Qaeda and their Taliban allies quite aggressively in Afghanistan. That was even before Iraq, remember?

      You're entitled to believe that invading Iraq was a big mistake. You're entitled to believe that George Bush is a big huge jerk. You're entitled to believe that Americans are overpaid, over sexed and over here, for all I care. But you're not entitled to your own *facts*. Try again.

      . - Alaska Jack

    103. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Well thanks for trying to help me but your help is similar the help a drowning man can offer to a man safe on the shore.

      The GP is stating the same facts in the same way you are, without any evidence to back them up. I was using the UK as an example of a randomly picked country which does not even remotely fit his terrorist profile. In the Middle East the majority of terrorist groups are Islamic which is hardly surprising considering that most of the Middle East is Islamic in the same way that Ireland is mainly Catholic & Protestant.

      The great grandparents point seemed to be suggesting that Islam is more likely to create terrorists than Christianity which is clearly not the case as evidenced by countries such as the UK.

      Iraq was no more harbouring terrorists than the US or the UK are harbouring terrorists now. His links to Al Quaeda are not unclear, they are non existant.

      Your point about Germany & Ireland is simply nonsense, neither of those situations were created by a desire to stop terrorism.

      Yes I remember the US going into Afghanistan but I don't see Osama Bin Laden in prison yet and by all accounts Al Quaeda is still just as big threat as it ever was so whatever it was that you think has been done to stop Al Quaeda doesn't seem to have been especially successful does it ?

      Your two sentances don't seem to based on anything I have written so it's interesting to consider what has prompted them.

    104. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 1

      I still don't get it.

      A) Iraq certainly was harboring terrorists. Abu Nidal and Abbu Abbas, two of the most notorious terrorists of the last half-century, were *both* caught there. And Saddam himself proclaimed he would pay money to the families of suicide bombers. For God's sake, man, these facts aren't in dispute. Are you telling me you hang out on Slashdot but don't know how to use Google?

      B) Listen to yourself. Now you're arguing that hunt for Bin Laden hasn't been successful. But that's not what you said. You said the U.S. was "ignoring the real, original terrorist groups." So again, I don't get it. If now you are saying the U.S. is unsuccessfully pursuing these groups, why at first did you say it was "ignoring" them?

      c) There is simply no way you can say "His (sic) links to Al Qaeda are non-existent." You are confidently stating as a fact something that, practically, you have no way of knowing. Just because you *wish* it to be true doesn't automatically make it so. There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence linking Al Qaeda to the Saddam regime -- we just don't know what the extent of those links was. If you want to call them "unproven," fine. Just stick to the facts.

      D) Let me get this straight -- the UK didn't act in the 1970s and 80s out of a "desire to stop terrorism"? ooookkaayyyyy ....

      At this point it becomes obvious that we have taken leave of reality entirely. I'm sorry, I tried to point out that you can still think the U.S. actions are wrong, without needing to resort to sheer looniness. If you want to argue on the *facts*, please feel free. Otherwise you're just wasting my time.

      - AJ

    105. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I) I can say that Saddams links to Al Qaeda are non existant until there is some proof that there were some links, as yet there is no proof.

      II) The person I was responding to was talking about Al Quaeda, I accept that Iraq was sponsoring other terrorist groups but then a lot of other countries are doing the same thing in the same way he was doing.

      III) The war in Iraq hasn't brought the apprehension of Osama Bin Laden any closer and as such is unrelated to the original intention of bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice which is where all this began. In that sense yes the original intention has been ignored. I'm not saying that the US is not still looking for Bin Laden but the main thrust of their actions are not related to tracking him down.

      IV) The UK didn't create the Ireland situation in order to prevent terrorism, once the situation had developed into terrorism the UK dealt with it. The peace process through which we have dealt with it in the main seems to be going fairly well. The situation in Iraq is different in that you took action in Iraq in part to stop terrorism despite numerous warnings that your actions would have the opposite effect - this is in no way comparable to the situation with the UK & Ireland.

    106. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by guybarr · · Score: 1

      since you claim to know about plasma-physics

      I did study it for several years. Note that people invested whole decades in it and still have things to know, though ...

      From what I know, the ways that we get power (electricity mostly?) from nuclear reactions is to extract the heat produced. If your hot, fusing plasma is contained in a magnetic field, how do you extract the heat from it?


      Only partly correct. There are two kinds of nuclear reactions, neutronic (those that produce neutrons) and non-neutronic. Those involving only hydrogen-isotopes are neutronic. These fast neutrons, being electrically neutral, immediately escape the magnetic field and hit the container surrounding the vacuum-chamber. They heat this container, and this heat can be used in the usual fashion.

      Actually, this is a real engineering problem, since, first, it is inefficient, and second, these neutrons transmute the atoms of container in much the same fashion a neutron bomb affects one's body, causing both reactor degradation and turning it into dangerous radioactive waste.

      There is a much more elegant way to extract energy directly from the plasma motion (MHD-generators), however, it requires that some of the nuclear reactions would be non-neutronic. Sadly, it means they envolve Boron-He3 or even heavier particles, and are therefore orders of magnitude harder to produce.

      Obviously our first step is to make a self-sustaining fusion reaction, but I hope (and know, really) that SOMEONE is thinking about how to make it commercially viable.

      Yes, someone is ;-) ...

      I just want to know what those people are thinking. :-)

      Although physics is by no means always easy, it's not voodoo either ... You can study it for yourself. If you have some undergraduate physics background, Goldstone & Rutherford's book is a nice, easy introduction. Chen's introduction to plasma-physics is also nice.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    107. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The situation in Iraq is different in that you took action in Iraq in part to stop terrorism despite numerous warnings that your actions would have the opposite effect...

      The situation in Iraq is basically a "hornet's nest". Normally if you have a hornets nest in your backyard, you can just ignore it hoping it will just go away or wither away and die off. But the reality is, hornet nest get bigger and eventually you will get stung by one of the bastards.

      On 911, the US got invaded by a swarm of hornets. We didn't do anything to create this infestation in the middle east accept ignoring the fact it existed without taking action. But now that we got stung, we have to drag out the big cans of bug spray and wipe them out. Sure, we have gotten stung in the process of knocking the nest out by stirring up the hornets. But, it WILL be knocked out based on the current progress in Iraq. When this day happens, we will not have to bother being attacked again as we will actively make sure another hornet does not have the chance to make a new nest.

      Humans are humans and hornets are hornets. But ultimately...life is life. I hope now you will not stick your head in the sand and just accept reality for what it is. War has and always will go on long after we are dead. In fact, you could say survival through war is what evolution allowed for our larger brains and intelligence. Those that can, do. Those that remain alive, procreate.

      Ask your self this. In war, what side would YOU rather be on? At the end of the day, we are all involved even if it's implicitly.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    108. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      On 911 the US was attacked by a group of terrorists who are most likely funded by Saudia Arabia and who's main backer and likely leader is still at large today - probably in Pakistan.

      Iraq was not a hot bed of terrorism and had nothing to do with 911.

      Iraq now is overrun with terrorists who are flocking there from all the surrounding countries. The terrorists are doing their best to stop Iraq from stabilising and no doubt learning a lot of valuable lessons in how to deal with the Western military and security into the bargain.

      Now that the situation in Iraq is what it is we have no choice but to deal with it and make sure Iraq turns into a stable democratic country, lets hope everyone involved sees this through properly.

    109. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Check your facts: Alteration of weather by wind farms is not significant, it will be decades before the number of birds dying by windmills comes within an order of magnitude of the ones that collide with buildings and biofuels essentially cause zero greenhouse gas output since they absorb carbon dioxide when growing not all of which is returned when they are made into fuel.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    110. Re:When did Greenpeace become anti-energy by AtlanticCarbon · · Score: 1

      The point is you have to take it on a case-by-case basis unless you want to resort to an appeal to popularity.

  5. How do the people of France like this? by John+Seminal · · Score: 0, Troll
    Would you want the newest and most experimental nuclear research facility in your neighborhood?

    They should build these plants in less populated areas, like Africa. In addition to the research center, they can build a hotel, maybe create some jobs.

    I hope the by-products from this nuclear plant, all the magnets, and the other uncountable changes won't ruin the soil or rain, and affect the quality of french wines. I keep hearing that next to Fermi Labs, there are now snakes with two heads and albino deer, all this stuff did not exists before they started their research.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:How do the people of France like this? by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 2, Funny

      I keep hearing that next to Fermi Labs, there are now snakes with two heads and albino deer
      Yeah, but how do they taste?

    2. Re:How do the people of France like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear that two magnets can improve your fuel economy!

      Everything you said is nonsense. Get over the fear of science.

    3. Re:How do the people of France like this? by lordholm · · Score: 1

      It's a European Union site, not French. France has nothing to do with this.

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    4. Re:How do the people of France like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep hearing that next to Fermi Labs, there are now snakes with two heads and albino deer, all this stuff did not exists before they started their research.

      You keep hearing this from whom? The voices in your head? I'm from near Fermi lab and can safely say that you're full of shit.

    5. Re:How do the people of France like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Don't know about the two-headed snake, but I expect that's an urban legend. The albino deer are at Argonne Nat'l Labs, which is pretty close to Fermi. They came that way though - the land that Argonne was on was donated to the gov't by a rich guy who imported the white deer to the site when he lived/hunted/something there. I belive that a stipulation of the donation was that the deer stayed. It is a bit creepy the first time you see them, but there's nothing odd about them.

    6. Re:How do the people of France like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike over your way, which is just a hotbed of intellectual activity, I'm sure.

    7. Re:How do the people of France like this? by mestreBimba · · Score: 1

      Would you want the newest and most experimental nuclear research facility in your neighborhood?


      In a heartbeat...... then again I live in the area of, and work for the principle nuclear power research center in the US. I can spit and hit the first "city" powered by atomic energy on the planet.

      The new Gen IV reactors that the US is developing are slated to be built here.

      Now a $$ 10 billion fusion project..... just think of the boon to the local economy.

      --
      Fly Fish? Participate in our forum
    8. Re:How do the people of France like this? by Admiral+Ackbar+8 · · Score: 1

      I keep hearing that next to Fermi Labs, there are now snakes with two heads and albino deer, all this stuff did not exists before they started their research.

      Yeah, yeah, yeah... and the buffalo glow green at night.

      As a former employee of said labs I will gladly refute the existence of anything like what you (or anyone else) have described (I have heard all kinds of wierd made-up stories).

      The main superconducting ring is 60ft underground; and FermiLab's experiments don't revolce around radioactive materials!

    9. Re:How do the people of France like this? by Otter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      They should build these plants in less populated areas, like Africa.

      The job market for physicists is tough, but even so, I imagine they'd have trouble attracting top-notch people to the Sahara or other sparsely inhabited (or AIDS-decimated) parts of Africa.

      Two headed rhinos and elephants would be cool, though.

    10. Re:How do the people of France like this? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      What are you complaining about? It is in France! The worst thing that can happen is that some French will get Fried...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    11. Re:How do the people of France like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, got any more racism you fucking asshole?

    12. Re:How do the people of France like this? by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      I used to live nearby Fermilab. I went to their movie nights from time to time. They have a herd of bison living onsite, with absolutely no ill effects. The claims that they are causing mutants and the like are simply silly. Seriously, if I remember correctly, the bison are living right above/nearby the tevatron main ring. If the magnets screwed with wildlife that much, somebody would have noticed, and tried to get famous by writing a paper about it and studying the exact nature of the effects.

    13. Re:How do the people of France like this? by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would I want a fusion research facility in my neighborhood? Hell yes!

      Too many people have this stigma about anything with the word nuclear in it that they panic and envision 50 foot ants eating them. Nuclear = dealing with the nucleus of the atom. Nuclear fusion = combining two light nuclei to make a heavier nucleus and release energy. Other than neutron activation of the surrounding material (the immediate area around the reaction, since it likely to be well shielded) there is no residual radiation (unlike fission which leaves slowly decaying fissile materials afterward).

      Magnets? ...
      Ruin the soil or rain? This process doesn't have to emit anything to the atmosphere or water. Unlike conventional fossil fuel plants which spew tons (tons!) of material into the air.

      I worked at Fermilab for awhile and there would always be a protest for a couple of weeks during the summer by people who just plain did not understand a bit of physics. They apparently read that the lab, reproduces the energy levels present at near the big bang, and assumed it was some sort of risk to the world (universe?).

    14. Re:How do the people of France like this? by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      The albino deer are imports to Argonne National labratory. They were brought there on purpose to be bred in the wild. As for snakes with 2 heads- give a reliable source, until then I call bullshit.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    15. Re:How do the people of France like this? by christophe · · Score: 1

      I'm French and living near one of our oldest nuclear plants. Our electricity national firm was allowed to run it about 10 years more than what was planned at the beginning. I don't like it.
      And I'm not very sure that solar and wind power will provide enough energy in the future. So I'd like to see fusion plants working as soon as possible...

      --
      Christophe (Don't hesitate to point out my spelling and grammar mistakes, I want to learn - Thanks).
    16. Re:How do the people of France like this? by bluGill · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can put it in my front yard. It has got to look better out my window than the freeway I look at now. (The freeway is ~ 1/2 mile away, close enough to be ugly, far enough that there is room for a fusion reactor to block that view)

      I like the swamps in my backyard, even if they do breed billions of mosquitoes. I I'm technically a NIMBY guy. They can have the front yard though.

    17. Re:How do the people of France like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't the waste neutrons be recylcled somehow or used to generate an alternate byproduct?

    18. Re:How do the people of France like this? by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 1

      Probably depending on the amount. Light water seems like it would be a good one for getting more heavy water, not sure if the neutron absorption for H is too low compared to the O though. Or use heavy water to get tritium.

    19. Re:How do the people of France like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like chicken, of course.

  6. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    Or, better still, the quote from last week's Wall Street Journal: "They're there when they need you."

    At least the French and British decided to stand up against a dictator rather then only joining in to defend personal interests ...

  7. Japan or France by mikejz84 · · Score: 0, Troll

    In a era where we are in grave need of new energy sources, we decide to build it in a country with a 35-hour workweek. God help us.

  8. Is that ten years by overshoot · · Score: 0, Troll
    ten calendar year or ten French labor-law years?

    If you subtract out every summer and figure a four-day workweek, how long will it actually take?

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Is that ten years by fitten · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the 35 hour (or is it less now?) workweek and the scheduled labor strike rotations...

    2. Re:Is that ten years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Is that ten years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that the manual work will be outsourced to the east european immgrants wandering around, which are a very convenient workforce.
      Obviously, to become a convenient workforce, the 35 hours/week and strikes are negated to them by default.
      But the sad thing is that they (the immigrants) don't care. They are there just to work.

    4. Re:Is that ten years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the matter - not feeling bitter about your 60 hour work week and 1 week annual leave are we?

  9. Re:10 Years? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1, Funny

    School must have been optional for you, where you come from...

    Where I come from, 2005 - 1985 != 10

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
  10. The good part is ... by beach_mon · · Score: 4, Informative
    The good part is, if this works, the efficiency scales with size. Also, if there is an accident, the reaction will burn itself out, rather than polluting the surrounding area for years to come, like a fission meltdown would.

    Of course, you'd want to be far away if a leak happened, in a remote control centre.

    1. Re:The good part is ... by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 1

      Also, if there is an accident, the reaction will burn itself out...

      If there was an uncontrolled reaction, wouldn't it burn a hole in the Earth through the crust spewing red-hot maaagma?

    2. Re:The good part is ... by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      If there was a plasma leak, you wouldn't want to be right in the stream, but once containment fails, the plasma will quickly cool, and fusion will not be sustained for more than a few seconds. It'd be bad, but it would be impossible for a fusion reactor to really do anything terrible.

    3. Re:The good part is ... by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      The plasma operates at far less than atmospheric pressure. It's nearly a vacuum. So if there was a leak, and you were standing right by it, you might feel a draft and hear a loud hiss as air rushes in, and douses the reaction.

    4. Re:The good part is ... by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      Of course, you'd want to be far away if a leak happened, in a remote control centre.

      I'm much more concerned about a resonance cascade scenario.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    5. Re:The good part is ... by Bloater · · Score: 1

      Hey, if you were standing right by it, you would have developed seven forms of cancer before the leak even happened.

    6. Re:The good part is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because in a few minutes it would be a cloud of vapor the size of Nebraska . . .

    7. Re:The good part is ... by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Laugh, it's funny. ;-)

      Really though, I hope people don't actually belive that sort of thing. Just a cursory look at available information would disprove that sort of thing so easily. People are just completely brainwashed into believe whatever spews forth from the TV. Sort of depressing...

  11. India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I would have prefered India, I've been a big fan of Indian Fusion for a long time. Who's ever heard of French Fusion anyway?

    1. Re:India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's freedom fusion, biotch.

    2. Re:India by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      That's FREEDOM FUSION to you bud!

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
  12. Great! by TorKlingberg · · Score: 1

    Great that this is finally happening, and not even the U.S.A. backed out.

    1. Re:Great! by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      But only on the condition that it be called "Freedom Fusion".

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  13. raison de merde by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are French! Ahhhhhhh We surrender!

  14. Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of you arrogant, pig-headed Americans can stay quiet. Do you know why? France ... *FRANCE* ... is going to beat you to a true nuclear fusion reactor.

    Hahahaha ...

    1. Re:Americans by peculiarmethod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I regret even thinking this.. but I can hear the thoughts of all the Republicans murmuring about how it is smarter to wait for the French to go through the first mistakes so 'we' can profit from your experienced knowledge. That, and there's more money in using up the equipment and reserves for the petroleum industry before jumping ship to the 'next big thing.'

      I don't agree with these thoughts.. but I can hear them.

      (puts tin-foil hat back on)

      --
      ** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
    2. Re:Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a refreshing comment after all this frech bashing

    3. Re:Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of the Panama Canal...

    4. Re:Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but right after they perfect it they will surreder it to the US, or Germany, or Vietnam, or anyone that points a stick at them.

    5. Re:Americans by HornWumpus · · Score: 1
      ITER may be in france but it won't belong to france.

      It belongs to the all the countrys that pay for it.

      IIRC
      the EU (not a country, but the constituant parts are too insignificant to list seperatly)
      USA
      Russia
      Japan

      All will own the technology involved. Where the prototype is makes little difference.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:Americans by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with these thoughts.. but I can hear them.

      (puts tin-foil hat back on)


      You have to take your tin-foil beanie off to hear people's thoughts? That sucks. I'm not sure it'd be worth the benefit. No good reading minds if yours is being controlled, you know? You must be using electro-telepathy, which would explain why you need to take off the hat. I'm more into neuro-chemical-empathy which only requires that I take my allergy medication to keep my nasal passages clear. To each their own, I guess.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:Americans by BigZaphod · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should just stop listening... Well... yeah, that probably won't work either. :-)

    8. Re:Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. Americans are not arrogant or pig-headed. They are retarded. Just look at who they choosed for president or some French bashing post on /. for proof.

    9. Re:Americans by rsynnott · · Score: 1

      America is co-funding this plant... As is Russia, most of the rest of Europe, China and Japan.

      --
      Me (Blog)
    10. Re:Americans by cazzazullu · · Score: 1

      I don't think it would come to that. The french army are not really wimps, and their veteran legion is one of the toughest armies in the world. Just that they do not send troops into a war they consider pointless doesn't mean they are cowards or wimps. It just seems a lot of americans can't take a no for an answer...

      --
      int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
  15. France says NIMBY? by dfsiii · · Score: 4, Informative

    Funny if they don't like this, as there are actually very few risks to Fusion recations. There is no waste by-product that is harmful to the area (like plutonium, for instance), there are few risks of "meltdown", the process uses only non-lethal fuels (seawater may suck to drink, but it isn't deadly to fish), and magnetic fields can be contained. Fusion != Fission. Remember that.

    1. Re:France says NIMBY? by AviLazar · · Score: 0, Troll

      If I am not mistaken, the big risk to fusion methods (at least until we get the process right) is the big explosion. No it is not radioactive, but it is still a big HONKIN explosion.

      I would not recommend any country that is less then stable - and many African countires are unstable.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    2. Re:France says NIMBY? by mcc · · Score: 1
      as there are actually very few risks to Fusion recations. There is no waste by-product that is harmful to the area (like plutonium, for instance), there are few risks of "meltdown", the process uses only non-lethal fuels (seawater may suck to drink, but it isn't deadly to fish), and magnetic fields can be contained
      Yes, but what about the very real risk that the Fusion reactor will get out of control, exploding in the face of its operators and turning them into battle-scarred machine-slaved monsters with mechanical octopus arms, an addiction to Tritium and an obsessive drive to build more Fusion reactors?

      What will France do then?
    3. Re:France says NIMBY? by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope. There is no way a fusion reactor can explode. Not enough high-temperature, high-potential-energy material.

    4. Re:France says NIMBY? by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1
      Yes, but what about the very real risk that the Fusion reactor will get out of control, exploding in the face of its operators and
      Can't happen.
      and turning them into battle-scarred machine-slaved monsters with mechanical octopus arms, an addiction to Tritium and an obsessive drive to build more Fusion reactors?
      Oh. Spider-man reference. Never mind.
    5. Re:France says NIMBY? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      DOesn't the original post say this thing needs to get to 1 million C....isn't 1 million C enough to make a big boom?

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    6. Re:France says NIMBY? by radtea · · Score: 1


      Nope, the big risk with fusion is that it'll never produce enough power to be interesting. Just because something is hot doesn't mean it's dangerous--density matters rather a lot as well.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    7. Re:France says NIMBY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, it appears that you are mistaken, because it's thought that upon loss of the magnetic containment field, the whole thing will just up and STOP--by people much smarter than either you or I for that matter... Just Like That. Maybe the walls of the reactor vessel will get a few neutrons and become slightly irridated. No big deal.

      It should be noted that there alreay ARE fusion reactors, running many megawatts--but producing no gross energy.

    8. Re:France says NIMBY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as there is no tritium, deuterium, or lithium.

      From wikipedia:
      More advanced nuclear weapons take advantage of nuclear fusion to derive more energy. In such a weapon, the X-ray thermal radiation from a nuclear fission explosion is used to heat and compress a capsule of tritium, deuterium, or lithium, in which fusion occurs, releasing even more energy. These weapons, colloquially known as hydrogen bombs, can be many hundreds of times more powerful than fission weapons.

    9. Re:France says NIMBY? by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      No. Not when you have such a small amount of stuff that hot. The hard part about fusion is getting something that hot. It takes containment better than currently exists to do it. If the containment fails, the plasma cools off. Thats what makes it so difficult to do.

    10. Re:France says NIMBY? by TCM · · Score: 1

      How does high thermal energy automatically relate to danger due to explosion? You don't see steel melting facilities explode all day, do you? I guess if the containment fails, all you get is some hot goo falling down and maybe a nice burn hole in the ground.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    11. Re:France says NIMBY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What will France do then?


      Surrender.
    12. Re:France says NIMBY? by kravlor · · Score: 1

      I'm a plasma physicist. The '100 million C' references, while technically accurate, are a bit misleading. The plasma particles (deuterium, tritium, helium "ash", etc.) have thermal energies that are around 10 keV (~100 million C). However, there aren't many particles to speak of; therefore, there isn't much _stored energy_ inside. If the plasma disrupts these particles hit the vacuum vessel / blanket and maybe knock off a few atoms' worth of wall. This is the same idea as snuffing out a glowing candle with your fingertips. You don't get burned because there's not much stored energy.

    13. Re:France says NIMBY? by rogueuk · · Score: 1

      the whole story is about France wanting it rather then letting the Japanese building it. Nowhere does it talk about France not wanting it in their back yard..they were going to build one anyway if the Japanese got the deal

    14. Re:France says NIMBY? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      There is no traditional chain reaction going in fusion reactors. IF the reaction gets out of control, temperature probably increases, which means the reaction shuts down itself. Imagine the reaction (energy output / temperature) wise like a parabole, rather than the exponential chain reaction of fission reactors.

      The important factor in the reactor is the size, which essentially tells us how much energy can the fusion reactor produce. The ones in existence operate at an energy loss atm, because the energy needed to sustain the reaction is greater at the moment than the energy produced. ITER would be the first reactor capable of producing energy in the traditional sense.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
  16. Available just in time, by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It will be available just in time to power Longhorn on the latest Intel. Oh yeah, and maybe restore power to the undersea Internet link to Pakistan.

  17. Whew, that was close. by ScentCone · · Score: 1, Interesting

    France had to threaten unilateral action to get this thing the way they wanted it. The Japanese participation was going to hinge on spending less money, given the location the French wanted. The French said they'd just build a group of participants who did see it their way and do it without those that were objecting because they knew it was the right thing to do, and it had to get started... um... huh. This sounds so oddly familiar. But I just know the French would only use such rhetoric if they didn't mind other people doing the same.

    Still, as much as I like to rib the French, I'll cut them some slack just because they're so good at pissing off Greenpeace.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Whew, that was close. by Pelops · · Score: 1

      Just a clarification, not just France threatened but the entire European Union.
      Plus, the japanese got a very nice deal out of thise, sure they are not hosting the reactor but look at the advantages they earned. I don't see Japan as really a loser her.

    2. Re:Whew, that was close. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The redeeming value of the French civilization is that they sunk the Rainbow Warrior -- twice. Once with a nuke.

    3. Re:Whew, that was close. by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't see Japan as really a loser here

      Neither do I. My point is that the French complain sometimes, very loudly, when other countries (like the US) do things unilaterally, or suggest that maybe some partners aren't worth having. Then, they do the very same thing. But again, nice wine, cheese, and Greenpeace boat sinking. So, I somewhat forgive them that little bit of hypocrisy.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:Whew, that was close. by El+Cabri · · Score: 1

      Nobody's a loser. The stakes were different. France wants local jobs and hi-tech projects to fill up vast, empty, but hospitable spaces (Provence) where people will be happy to relocate. Japan is a cramped country as it is, and they don't have an unemployement problem. But on the other hand they get much more bang for their buck in terms of industrial benefits and control of the project.

      The key here is that the EU WOULD indeed have done the project by themselves, especially in these times where big, pan-european hi-tech grand projects are all the rage in Brussels (see the Galileo GPS project and talks of "re-orienting" the EU budget towards research and science). Japan then would have been left in a duo with the US to whom the would have had to yield everything.

    5. Re:Whew, that was close. by hshana · · Score: 1

      Flamebait? Which one of you euro-apologist socialists modded it that way? (There's some flamebait for you...)

    6. Re:Whew, that was close. by AtlanticCarbon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't see a difference between unilaterally invading another country and unilaterally developing a scientific / technical project? Are there any international rules against what France did? With the US there was that whole UN Charter thing...

    7. Re:Whew, that was close. by Pelops · · Score: 1

      French people complain all the time. Don't forget that going on strike is a French hobby.
      But regarding hypocrisy, i see any country better here :) It is -I think- called politics and on how to get what you want.

    8. Re:Whew, that was close. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Are there any international rules against what France did?

      I'm really not talking about that. I'm just referring to the fun that French politicians have referring to what they see as US arrogance on all sorts of subjects, when they themselves (see their policies in Africa, or much of what they seek to do with trade/tarrifs, etc) are actually quite willing to say that other countries or organizations aren't worth listening to.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:Whew, that was close. by christophe · · Score: 1

      A correction: Provence is far far away from vast and empty. It is our Florida. House prices are awfully high.

      The site was chosen because we have already some fusion experimental equipment and qualified people at this place.

      And yes, we want the jobs :-)

      --
      Christophe (Don't hesitate to point out my spelling and grammar mistakes, I want to learn - Thanks).
    10. Re:Whew, that was close. by Renaud · · Score: 1

      Once and for all :

      Parent is wrong, as is the /. write-up (which he wrote too), *THE EU*, not France decided they would go "alone" if Japan wouldn't follow.
      Comments in the previous /. story that discussed ITER explain this very well, but I won't bother looking them up.

      I know most french bashers in the US suck at geography (and most other things, for that matter), but please, that's not the same...

      And... using that expression "coalition of the willing" .... as if a scientific project of this scale somehow could be compared to buying up powerless countries' governments (against their peoples will), so they'll provide a few dozen soldiers and a good conscience.
      Bah...

    11. Re:Whew, that was close. by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      With the US there was that whole UN Charter thing.

      I know you aren't seriously going to bring up UN resolutions as a reason against action in Iraq.

    12. Re:Whew, that was close. by Refrag · · Score: 1

      Way to compare invading a country and killing a bunch of people with building a science project!

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    13. Re:Whew, that was close. by kisak · · Score: 1

      There seems to be a slight difference in starting a war unilaterally and building a scientific laboratory unilaterally. Or maybe its just me.

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    14. Re:Whew, that was close. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Way to compare invading a country and killing a bunch of people with building a science project!

      Way to assume that's what I was talking about!

      By the way... suppose there was a guy who was busy regularly burying thousands and thousands of a particular ethnicity in mass graves, and that funneled money to terrorists, and that had a bad habit of attacking neighboring countries. Or that after signing a UN agreement regarding, among other things, no-fly zones above the areas where he was slaughtering people, still shot at the aircraft securing those areas every week for years. Would stopping someone like that from operating, saving countless lives as a result, and getting to watch those people have actual elections also rate below a "science project?"

      Just curious. I not only consider those pursuits not to be mutually exclusive, but I think that we can't really put the resources we should into science until guys like that are less able to poison the world.

      But that's all a side-bar discussion. I was referring, of course, to the French attitude about the "unilateral" US position on cheese tariffs. I find them to be hypocritical about that. And about the sale of California wines in France.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    15. Re:Whew, that was close. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      And... using that expression "coalition of the willing"

      Actually, it was Reuters that used that phrase. Read the orginally linked-to article.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    16. Re:Whew, that was close. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      unilaterally invading another country

      32 > 1

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    17. Re:Whew, that was close. by panzerneo · · Score: 5, Informative

      To be fair, Bush sided on Japan's side for the sole purpose of blocking Europe from being the host site, that was seen back then (2003), as a retaliation, mainly against France, for not supporting the war. It's true that France, through Chirac, said they would support an extra financial burden to by-pass the US support and get moving with this project. Like it or not, France showed some leadership, got this project involving top science moving, while the US stepped back and did nothing.

  18. By George, I think he's got it! by overshoot · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I swear, I think Greenpeace is more concerned about making sure nobody builds any new powerplants than they are about protecting the environment.

    If we were to reduce the human population to a more sustainable level (say, a few hundred thousand) we could burn natural deadwood and buffalo chips for all the energy we need without causing unacceptable environmental damage.

    Or at least that's the theory. For more detail read a Tom Clancy novel. Don't forget: shiny side out.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:By George, I think he's got it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sieg heil!

    2. Re:By George, I think he's got it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if we were to reduce the human population to a more sustainable level (say, a few hundred thousand) we could burn natural deadwood and buffalo chips for all the energy we need without causing unacceptable environmental damage.

      Funny, I was just thinking that if we reduced the extreemist groups to a more sustainable level (say, 0) we (rational people) could have more pull with others in power without extreemist groups causing damage by suggesting things no one will ever want to hear/do like reducing the population to a few hundred thousand. Zero emission power sounds like it would be pretty good for the environment but because many extreemist organizations, IMHO aren't really out to do as much good as they are to just argue with others.

  19. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by saider · · Score: 1

    Somebody still has to keep those powerlines in good order. Unless they develop the household Mr. Fusion, then they'll just have to deliver Deuterium to your door.

    --


    Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
  20. Re:10 Years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I believe he was refering to this:

    With financing and contracting agreements in place, the 10-year construction can begin

  21. For who? by marcantonio · · Score: 1

    From TFA:

    "If we can really make this work there will be enough electricity to last the world for the next 1,000 to 2,000 years."

    Is this reactor suppose to power the world? What about distribution?

    My vote would be to focus on a smaller project that can be duplicated in less than 50 years.

    1. Re:For who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm hoping that you're being sarcastic but if not, the reactor is an experimental system. If it works, other reactors will be built in other areas around the world.

    2. Re:For who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think previous projects have failed because they were too small. If fusion happened it took more energy than it released.

  22. A little bit disappointed, but there's an upside by haggar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have nothing against France (only some French), but I was warmly hoping that Japan gets the project. In my view, Japan is so perfectly suited, technology and mentality-wise, to pull this off.

    Still, France is OK, because they are one of the countries with highest % of nuclear energy. So much so, in fact, that they make a lot of good money exporting it.

    And get this: one of the largest importers (the largest?) offrench electric energy is Germany, who have outlawed and disbanded their nuclear plants due to Green misguided pressure, and are now
    a) polluting themselves with coal plants, which actually produce more radioactive waste than nuclear plants of same energy output (not to mention other pollutants).
    b) paying for el. energy to France, which is produced by nuclear plants which are close enough to Germany, that if a meltdown happened, they would be just as affected!

    There is something humorous in all this.

    --
    Sigged!
  23. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    With someone having to run the plant, the licensing required, the cleanups, pr, etc it costs money. And do you honestly think the energy companies are going to research themselves out of a paycheck? Hopefully fusion power will work, but we will still be charged. Hopefully it will be cheaper if it is truly clean. Hopefully it will be cheaper if the cost to create the energy is inexpensive. But there will always be a price...just hopefully it will stagger future price increases.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  24. That's it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is it. This pretty much ends any intellectual respect that I had for the mainstream environmental movement. Michael Crichton is right. It is nothing more than a secular remapping of Judeo-Christian puritanism onto modern science.

  25. Re:10 Years? by drxenos · · Score: 1

    I think you miss read that. The project start in 1985. The construction (not started yet) will take 10 years. Maybe reading was optional in your school?

    --


    Anonymous Cowards suck.
  26. That's nothing - Colorado gets a new coal plant by joelsanda · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here in Colorado, USA, we're getting a new coal fired electrical plant. Stick with proven technology, we always say.

    --
    The Luddites were ahead of their time.
    1. Re:That's nothing - Colorado gets a new coal plant by geekwithsoul · · Score: 1

      Mmmm - and with that sulphur-tainted mountain water you can really taste it in the Coors.

    2. Re:That's nothing - Colorado gets a new coal plant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes...."There's no fuel like an old fuel".

    3. Re:That's nothing - Colorado gets a new coal plant by Ranger · · Score: 1

      Mmmm - and with that sulphur-tainted mountain water you can really taste it in the Coors.

      At least then you'll be ABLE to taste something.

      Coors, the best beer-flavored water you can buy!

      --
      "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    4. Re:That's nothing - Colorado gets a new coal plant by lpangelrob · · Score: 1
      Here in Illinois, USA, the Supreme Court is allowing Wisconsin to build a new coal fired electrical plant, right on the state line.

      It reminds me of Sim City 2000, where you could stick all your power plants in the corners and edges, so you would only deal with 1/4th to 1/2 of the pollution you would normally have to deal with.

      Then again, maybe it's just karma (South Chicago, IL)

    5. Re:That's nothing - Colorado gets a new coal plant by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Ahh, Colorado, home of Denver, the greyest city in the west! I almost went to Denver, once, but when I saw the big grey blot on the horizon, I turned north immediately and went to Wyoming.

    6. Re:That's nothing - Colorado gets a new coal plant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Minnesota I guess they're gonna build this coal gassification plant. The coal gassification people say it's gonna be sweet, and why would they lie?

    7. Re:That's nothing - Colorado gets a new coal plant by Dirtside · · Score: 3, Funny
      Here in Colorado, USA, we're getting a new coal fired electrical plant. Stick with proven technology, we always say.
      I think you meant, "Stick with *cough* proven tech*hack cough*nology, we always *cough cough* say. *cough*"
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    8. Re:That's nothing - Colorado gets a new coal plant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, Colorado is also experimenting with wind power. Ask those people in MA how their wind turbines are going...

    9. Re:That's nothing - Colorado gets a new coal plant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Illinois, USA, the Supreme Court is allowing Wisconsin to build a new coal fired electrical plant, right on the state line.

      Um... you have a pretty funny definition of 'right on the state line.' Oak Creek is a suburb of Milwaukee, more than 40 miles from the Illinois border. There are two entire counties separating Oak Creek and Illinois.

  27. Shift in power by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

    This is very interesting. I thought Japan had this in the bag. Of the two groups vying for power in this scenario, EU/Russia/China vs. US/Japan/Korea, it appears that the "non-aligned" group has won. However I imagine Japan will still have a very substantial role in this.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    1. Re:Shift in power by rogueuk · · Score: 1

      Japan got a serious compensation package for getting beat.

      From the BBC article:
      According to the package, Japan will get 20% of the project's 200 research posts while providing only 10% of the expenses, and host a related materials research facility - of which half the construction costs will be shouldered by the EU.

      Not too shabby

    2. Re:Shift in power by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Even though Japan uses 3 times as much energy than France, France makes 2 times as much uranium-fission-type energy than Japan, only second to the US. Geohive data.

    3. Re:Shift in power by Steve+Fuller · · Score: 1

      Who says that Japan won't build one too, ala Contact.

      First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price? -- Seymour Hadden

  28. I can't believe it by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    France actually *fought* for something?!

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:I can't believe it by fjf33 · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and won?!?!?!

    2. Re:I can't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The French got it by threatening to have every Frenchman and woman on the planet lift their arms simultaneously, exposing humanity to a gaseous cloud infinitely more deadly than anything produced by a nuclear meltdown.

      Compared to that Chernobyl would have been little more than a fart in a gymnasium.

      The Japanese backed down, being a clean people unlike the French, because they are so unaccustomed to stench that they feared a death toll greater than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined.

  29. just in time? by nickos · · Score: 1

    Maybe we can figure out how to get cheap energy from fusion before oil production peaks in 3 to 5 years time.

    See here and here

    1. Re:just in time? by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      MSNBC had an article a few days ago about some oil expert saying production wouldn't peak until 2020 and that by 2007/2008 gas prices would drop dramatically due to new sources "coming online"...
      br I think I might go buy a few more hummers with news like that...

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:just in time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read his second link? It says Exxon Mobil Corporation has published a report ("The Outlook for Energy: A 2030 View") which forecasts a peak in five years! That's pretty scary.

  30. not the french green by spectrokid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are actually several french green politicians and activist who are pro nuclear fission (yes the old nukes!) because they see it as the only realistic way of cutting CO2 emissions in the short term.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:not the french green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that makes a lot of sense. Nuclear power plants, unlike greenhouse fuel-burning plants, have their evilness contained in one small area rather than spreading it over the entire earth, and affecting its long term climatology. I fully support nuclear (fission) power, although we should of course convert to fusion if it is made feasible.

    2. Re:not the french green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you quote one? I'm french and I can't think of any

    3. Re:not the french green by rsynnott · · Score: 1

      This isn't surprising; France has an extremely good nuclear record.

      --
      Me (Blog)
  31. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by fjf33 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Fusion is supposed to be much cleaner and safer. If the contaiment field fails, it just stops going. I think there is still the issue of the surrounding structures becoming radioactive themseves and then we would have to dispose of that. But the fusion process itself is very clean. Overall you take deuterium (a type of hidrogen where there are two neutrons instead of only one) and you make them smash hard enough to make a helium molecule (plus a bunch of other particles) that is lighter than the the two hydrogen molecules taken separate with the difference in weight becoming energy by the famous e=mc^2. This is so hot that they have to use a magnetic container to keep the walls from melting and the hydrogen from cooling. If the magnet fails then the reaction just stops. With a bang but nothing more destructive than say a rocket fuel factory going up?

  32. I don't think it will work. by gid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From what I thought, the reason that the Sun can support fussion is because the massive gravity of all the hydrogen pulling together slams them into each other hard enough to fuse. (more or less) Small scale fusion plants obviously won't have enough gravity to sustain a fusion reaction, so you gotta slam the atoms together some other way.

    But what I don't get is when you fuse an atom, energy is released, but when you split an atom into two, energy is released as well. How is this not perpetual motion? If fusion energy was possible, couldn't you just take your nuclear waste from fission and split it back into uranium and whatever again. :)

    Obviously fission works, so I'm guessing you'll never be able to get enough energy out of fusion than what you put into it.

    Which actually brings up another question, where does gravity's energy come from that supports the suns fusion? What causes the force of gravity?

    I'm just a computer programer though, I only took one college physics course, but still am rather curious as to how the universe works.

    1. Re:I don't think it will work. by hacksoncode · · Score: 1
      Here's the short (wildly over-simplistic, not to mention just plain wrong) answer: going upwards from below iron in the periodic table you get energy from fusion, and above iron you lose it. Going downwards from above iron in the periodic table you get energy from fission and below iron you lose it.

      So, no, you can't get perpetual motion. You just end up with iron.

    2. Re:I don't think it will work. by imsabbel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      PLEASE, OH PLEASE dont talk out of you ass. If you dont know the science behind it, dont say it couldnt work.

      Fyi: Binding energy in atoms depends on the size of the nucleus, because of symetry and force range issues.

      Iron is the state will the stongest binding. Fusing 2 lighte cores will yield energy because the product is closer to iron, smashing a very heavy core into 2 parts will yield energy because the lighter resulting cores are closer to Fe47.

      Just looking into wikipedia, or just googling would have given you that information, and in less time it took you to write down that testimony of you ignorance.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:I don't think it will work. by drxenos · · Score: 1

      Wow, you should seriously consider taking some more courses in Physics and Chemistry. Yes, you get energy from both, but for different reasons, and you get *a lot* more from fusion than from fission. Gravity does not have energy. It is a fundamental force (or a field, depending on the theory) of the universe. What causes it? If we knew, it might ask a lot of questions, and lead to the unified field theory (the theory of everything).

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    4. Re:I don't think it will work. by th1ckasabr1ck · · Score: 1
      "What causes the force of gravity?"

      That's a really good question. We know enough about gravity to be able to write equations that predict how it behaves in most situations, but we still don't really have any clue what it is.

      Offtopic I know..

    5. Re:I don't think it will work. by Martin_Flory · · Score: 1

      Which actually brings up another question, where does gravitys energy come from that supports the suns fusion? What causes the force of gravity? I think you are wondering about the source of the gravity field in the stars? Well... my friend... there are lots of STUFF in stars. The STUFF has MASS , the MASS causes the gravity field. A lot of STUFF, a lot of gravity then.

    6. Re:I don't think it will work. by drxenos · · Score: 1

      That's a simplistic answer that dances around the question. To date, we do not know what causes gravity. Yes, more mass equals more gravity but that still does not explain its cause. You can increase mass, and thus gravity, without adding more "stuff" by approach the speed of light.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    7. Re:I don't think it will work. by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Well, gravity does of course have energy, because its created by a potential. And of course you get gravitational binding energy (for example the reason jupiter is producing energy).

      Also, you get a lot more energy per nucleus from fission then from fusion (factor 4 or 5), it only seems the other way because hydrogen is so damn light :)

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    8. Re:I don't think it will work. by RockyMountain · · Score: 5, Informative
      But what I don't get is when you fuse an atom, energy is released, but when you split an atom into two, energy is released as well. How is this not perpetual motion?

      IANAP (I am not a physicist), but here's how I understand it. Nature loves middle-weight neuclei. Extremely light neuclei (e.g. Hydrogen) and extremely heavy ones (e.g. Plutonium) are less stable.
      • For very light elements (e.g. hydrogen), fusion releases energy.
      • For very heavy elements (e.g. Plutonium), fission releases energy.

      In both cases, you release energy by moving towards middle-weight elements. If I recall correctly, Iron has the most stable neucleus of all. The raw materials for fission, such as Uranium and Plutonium, are much heavier than Iron. By breaking up the neuclei into lighter elements, you move closer to the ideal middle-weight stable elements, thus releasing energy. Likewise, the raw materials for fission, such as Hydrogen, are much lighter than Iron. By fusing their nuclei, into heavier elements, you move closer to the ideal middle-weight elements, so you release energy.

      There's no perpetual motion involved. You can't get energy back by reversing either type of reaction. For example, you'd have to put energy IN, if you wanted to fission Helium back into Hydrogen, because you'd be moving further away from the ideal middle-weigh neuclei.

      So, if someone asks you to invest in their iron-fuelled nuclear power plant, your money is probably best invested elsewhere!

    9. Re:I don't think it will work. by Deviant+Q · · Score: 1

      Fission: splitting heavy atoms (uranium [mass ~ 235 amu) or plutonium or whatever) into lighter ones with smaller, but still substantial, masses (e.g. iodine, cesium, strontium, xenon, barium)

      Fusion: fusing light atoms, usually hydrogen (mass ~ 1 amu), into very slightly heavier ones, e.g. helium (mass ~ 2 amu).

      So they are completely disconnected. There's no slamming the cesium and strontium back together to create uranium. And there's no splitting the helium into hydrogen.

      Gravity is, according to Einstein, caused by mass distorting the geometry of spacetime. Thus things follow geodesics in spacetime (essentially straight lines in a curved geometry), which means they are "forced" some way or another. The energy is thus potential energy, i.e. energy by virtue of force (gravity) that will happen in the future; it is converted to kinetic energy when the force actually starts to act.

      Other theories attempt to supplant general relativity, e.g. loop quantum gravity, which deals with the relationship between events and how they affect each other (kinda fuzzy on that), or the string theories, which predict the graviton particle as an analogous boson (messenger particle) like the photon for the electromagnetic force.

      Wikipedia is your friend. Go look up nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, gravity, general relativity, quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity, and string theory.

      And I'm also a computer programmer, and have you beat: I have only taken one high-school physics course. This results from the fact that I'm still in high school. So, learn stuff. It's fun. Lots of good books for it.

      --
      "May the days be aimless. Let the seasons drift. Do not advance the action according to a plan."
    10. Re:I don't think it will work. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      You can increase mass, and thus gravity, without adding more "stuff" by approach the speed of light.

      erm... not strictly true... depending on how you write the equations, you could say that inertial mass increases with speed, or you could simply say that our equation for kinetic energy is not quite correct, and has a speed dependent multiplicative correction, called the gamma factor. This is actually the route preferred by most theorists these days, but not the way Einstein wrote it. This is preferred because the gamma factor shows up usefully in a lot of other places as well.

      Anyway, the point was that 1) special relativity doesn't really deal with gravity, but anyway, 2) the increased mass from relativistic speeds is only inertial mass, and does not affect the gravitational force.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    11. Re:I don't think it will work. by drxenos · · Score: 1

      No, *objects* have potential energy. Says gravity itself has energy makes no sense.

      Hydrogens "weight" has nothing to do with it. If you graph all the elements showing the amount of energy they release from fusion or fission (which ever is appl.) you see that you get much, much more will come from fussing atoms.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    12. Re:I don't think it will work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cooriolation is not causation (err something spelled about like that) the actual observation is closer to "when a greater mass is observed, a greater gravitational force has sofar also always been observed aswell." but who is to say one causes the other?"

      my point here is, no, we do NOT know that MASS "causes" gravity, we can only say that of the observations made sofar, there seems to be a direct relationship between the two.

    13. Re:I don't think it will work. by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      "There's no slamming the cesium and strontium back together to create uranium."

      Yes there is, its how unununium (now roentgenium) and what not are made. You just don't get any net energy out of the reaction. You only put into it.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    14. Re:I don't think it will work. by drxenos · · Score: 1

      Well, I won't dispute it as you seem to know what you are talking about. But General Relativity does state that there is no difference between inertial and gravatational mass.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    15. Re:I don't think it will work. by lordholm · · Score: 1

      You don't need gravity for this, it can and has been done by creating a compressed plasma in a magnetic vacuum torus shaped chamber.

      You release energy by fusing atoms lighter than iron and splitting atoms heavier than iron. So there is no perpetual motion involved.

      The JET fusion reactor in the EU has demonstrated most of the ideas and they work.

      This is a great day for mankind (and the glory of Europe :)

      --
      "Civis Europaeus sum!"
    16. Re:I don't think it will work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    17. Re:I don't think it will work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, why are you replying with this to me? The parent to my post said "mass causes gravity" not mine!

    18. Re:I don't think it will work. by sploxx · · Score: 1

      He did just ask a question, no need for such a harsh answer. I think the others did just say very well what the mods should do... :-)

      AND, to be nitpicking:

      [...] Fusing 2 lighte cores will yield energy because the product is closer to iron, [...]

      What is 'closer' here? Closer in binding energy or atomic number. The latter would be the wrong answer, the former is right.

      For the grandparent: If you want to know what this is all about, google for "binding curve energy". The first result I get explains it very well and easily understandable.

    19. Re:I don't think it will work. by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      a:) Nuclii dont have energy either, its just the potential energy of the strong force. Same stuff, just another force, also derived from a potential.

      b) Fusion of 4 Protons->4He: net gain around 20MeV.
      Fission of on Uran235 nucleus: net gain about 150-200MeV (depending on educts)
      I know exactly what graph you mean (i had to learn it also for my particly phyiscs examn), but it showes binding energy PER NEUTRON/PROTON, not per core. So the "little" gain of 235 in Uran-fission more than makes of the "big" gain of the 4 involved in the standart fusion.

      (but of course this is only riding on semantics, per Kg fusion is better)

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    20. Re:I don't think it will work. by TummyX · · Score: 2, Informative

      You make it sound like the process of moving towards a middle-weight stable element somehow magically causes "energy release" because nature likes it.

      It's clearer by just saying:

      The extra energy comes from the destruction of matter which is converted to energy.

      For example, in a fusion reaction, the reactants (usually deuterium and/or tritium) have a greater mass than what's left behind (helium and neutrons). Since e=mc^2, you get a huge amount of energy for a small amount of lost mass.

    21. Re:I don't think it will work. by drxenos · · Score: 1

      Again and still, it's the object (nucleus) that has potential energy, not the force.

      You stated: you get a lot more energy per nucleus from fission then from fusion.

      I hope you didn't put that on your exam. The amount energy PER EVENT is greater for fission. But the amount PER NUCLEON is 7 TIMES GREATER for fusion than for fission.
      A quick google search...
      http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:pY7eiZtxh8kJ:w ww.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae534.cfm+&hl =en

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    22. Re:I don't think it will work. by Archimboldo · · Score: 2, Informative

      In heavy nuclei, you have the repulsive electrical force between the protons barely held in check by the attractive nuclear force in a shallow potential well. When you push the energy of the nucleus over the edge of the potential well, you release all the electric force. In light nuclei, you have the nuclear force dominating and particles in the nucleus are held at the bottom of a deep potential well. Pushing energetic particles past the shallow slope of the electric potential pulls them into the deep nuclear force potential well, releasing energy.

    23. Re:I don't think it will work. by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      The sun can support fusion because the pressures and temperatures necessary to perform H -> He fusion are generated by the extreme gravitational forces present.

      The Sun is just high-pressure, high-temperature gas, which means that the hydrogen atoms are very closely packed (high pressure) and have a lot of energy (high temperature), meaning that there's a good probability two of them will run into each other with enough force to fuse. There's no reason this couldn't be replicated on Earth, though with much more work on our part!

      The fission and fusion reactions we use are very specific ones. Don't worry, total energy (that is energy present in the mass of the atoms + energy present in the form of radiation) is preserved in both fission and fusion! But in these reactions some energy changes form -- usually from matter into electromagnetic energy (light).

      You couldn't take uranium, break it apart to get energy, then put it together to get energy, and somehow end up with what you started with. Not only that, the "easy" fission and fusion reactions produce materials that are not easy to put through nuclear reactions. Hydrogen is "easy" to fuse into Helium, but Helium does not fuse easily (only nearly-dead stars do so) and is practically impossible to perform fission on. The products given off by uranium or plutonium fission would be very, very difficult to fuse.

      The short and off-topic answer to your gravity question is that the gravity of the Sun is produced by the matter that makes up the Sun. Remember that the Sun is made up of many, many particles (atoms). To use the undergraduate-type explanation, each atom making up the Sun exerts some gravitational force on each other atom. If you think about it, you may be able to convince yourself that each particle making up the Sun has a net gravitational force that pulls it toward the group's center. Some calculus reveals that the problem is actually a heck of a lot simpler than it sounds.

      This sort of thing is a major element in star formation: the atoms will be pulled toward their collective center until forces pushing them away from the center (in the Sun's case, just the high temperatures and pressures generated) counterbalance the gravitational forces. If somehow there is enough matter that it is pulled toward its center with more force than any outward forces (including the very strong Pauli repulsion) can overcome, a black hole or singularity will result.

    24. Re:I don't think it will work. by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Gravity has energy as much as electromagnetism has energy. It's a slip of English, so it's not really quite correct to say "gravity has energy", but there certainly is gravitational energy and potential.

      What he's asking is where the gravitational self-energy of the sun comes from. The answer, of course, is given in its name "self-energy". :p

      At an undergraduate level, it's a fundamental force or field. From a quantum perspective, it's a fundamental, quantizable interaction, treatable by quantum field theory. From a relativistic perspective it's an alteration of space-time caused by the presence of energy. (At least, that's what it is when I explain it so poorly.)

      The interaction between two gravitational fields certainly does have energy.

    25. Re:I don't think it will work. by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      It's not quite that simple, as it should be possible for elements such as iron (and heavier) to fuse (and presumably release energy, if it's going to happen much). Otherwise the heavier-than-iron elements would not exist. Or so it would seem from what I remember from the stellar origin of elements.

    26. Re:I don't think it will work. by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      They're not completely disconnected. Fission and fusion by no means have to be of heavy and light elements, respectively. It's just that those are the ones that are easy and energetically advantageous for us to use for power generation. There's nothing stopping you from breaking Helium into Hydrogen atoms, except for the strong binding between the protons and neutrons in a Helium atom. You can also fuse heavy atoms together -- as another poster mentioned, that's how one obtains the very heavy rare elements.

      Also, Helium's mass is roughly 4 times that of Hydrogen (or 2 times that of Deuterium).

      Not bad for high school physics, though. Also, you can predict gravitons from the quantization of the gravitational field without knowing terribly much about it and certainly without string theory. You just can't justify it or prove that it's true. It might help a bit if we saw a gravitational wave, but we haven't.

    27. Re:I don't think it will work. by JohnG307 · · Score: 1

      Kinda. It is possible to fission lighter elements, or to fuse heavier ones. In nuclear reactors, though, you want to go for the reaction that's going to be easiest to achieve-- large atoms are easier to break apart and smaller ones are easier to jam together.

    28. Re:I don't think it will work. by Deviant+Q · · Score: 1

      Bah, knew I should've looked up those masses :-P. Summer makes me weak... Now all I know is PHP (for my job).

      In regards to gravitons---can you predict them from other non-string theories that have some theoretical backing, or are you just making the analogy that photons:EM::gravitons:gravity, so gravitons probably exist?

      My impression was LQG and string theory were the only quantum gravity theories that weren't so far self-contradictory or incomplete. Probably pretty naive point of view, but who knows...

      Thanks for taking the time to inform me!

      --
      "May the days be aimless. Let the seasons drift. Do not advance the action according to a plan."
    29. Re:I don't think it will work. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      It's not quite that simple, as it should be possible for elements such as iron (and heavier) to fuse (and presumably release energy, if it's going to happen much).

      Well, we already know that it doesn't happen much - just in supernovae for the most part. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the reaction is exothermic. Production of water vapor from water requires an input of energy, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in nature.

    30. Re:I don't think it will work. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      It's clearer by just saying:

      The extra energy comes from the destruction of matter which is converted to energy.

      For example, in a fusion reaction, the reactants (usually deuterium and/or tritium) have a greater mass than what's left behind (helium and neutrons). Since e=mc^2, you get a huge amount of energy for a small amount of lost mass.


      That could be said of any energy-producing reaction. The exahust products of your car are lighter than the fuel it burns. Granted, the difference is probably on the order of picograms or less, and so you can't measure it.

      What your explanation lacks is the reason why the products of fusion are lighter than the reactants - which has to do with what the parent was talking about, and is further clarified by other comments.

      D+T -> He+n0 is your basic fusion reaction. You'll note that both sides of the equation have identical counts of protons, neutrons, and electrons. These particles themselves are identical in mass on both sides of the equation. So, where does the extra mass come from? Well, that would be binding energy, which would require more physics to clearly explain than I have mastered.

      To say that energy is released simply because mass is lost is a bit simplistic. It is true, but it does little to explain why both fusion and fission produce energy, which was the original question. This seems like a paradox, and simply saying that it all works out because mass is lost simply leads to the paradox of why combining some atoms causes a loss of mass, while splitting others leads to a similar loss of mass.

    31. Re:I don't think it will work. by LionMage · · Score: 1

      In main-sequence stars, the fusion of elements stops at iron, because the fusion of iron atoms into heavier atoms yields no surplus energy -- therefore the reaction isn't sustainable.

      Elements heavier than iron are produced in supernovae, where the incredible pressure wave created by the explosion causes the fusion of heavier atoms. Basically, since these fusion reactions don't have a net positive energy yield, they're sucking energy from that of the supernova explosion that precipitated the process in the first place. Now, as to where that energy comes from, that's a bit more complicated, and outside of the scope of this discussion, but you can read about it.

    32. Re:I don't think it will work. by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Based on the very little I know, you're just going on the basis that the gravitational field can be treated like any of the other fields, with quantum field theory. Developing this leads you to gravitons and the quantization of the gravitational field. However, photons are observable, as are the effects of EM field quantization, so we know that this is a reasonable thing to do. As I understand it, we have been unable to devise effects of a quantized gravitational field that we would observe, so there's no reason to take a graviton theory over another one other than the precedent set by other fields. I don't know to what extent this treatment of gravity even works -- it may certainly be self-contradictory in certain situations or incomplete.

      String theory may not be self-contradictory or incomplete, but it's just as baseless as anything else right now, as it makes no predictions that could be verified experimentally.

    33. Re:I don't think it will work. by Staats · · Score: 1

      I believe that fusion produces energy by turning a small amount of matter into energy when the fusion occurs. You still have larger atoms then when you started, but not as big as you'd think from looking at the components - it's like taking 3 + 3 and getting 5 and little bit of energy.

      Not really a physics person though, so if someone could validate this info, that'd be great.

  33. Intolerable by overshoot · · Score: 1
    You know, because it would be horrible to have this as an emmissions-free source of energy. Incredible.

    No, intolerable. If a source of energy emits no pollution, greenhouse gasses, or nuclear waste (etc.) then there's no reason not to use it. That would never do, now, would it? What would the protesters do?

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:Intolerable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a source of energy emits no pollution, greenhouse gasses, or nuclear waste (etc.) then there's no reason not to use it.

      You've hit the nail on the head! We should invest those billions of dollars into proven wind power generators right now, instead of gambling on a high risk research project that, even in the best case scenario, will not lead to any practical power generation in the next 20 years.

    2. Re:Intolerable by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      We should invest those billions of dollars into proven wind power generators right now

      But then you've got another bunch of protesters complaining about the windfarms ruining the appearance of the habitat, killing birds, killing bats, making noise, and requiring thousands of miles of new cables to be stretched across the countryside. It's not whether they work, they just get a completely different group of protesters in court complaining about a different set of issues.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:Intolerable by MinutiaeMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's not as if whaling, logging, deforestation, land mines, corporate misconduct, pseudo-Orwellian police states, and international warfare aren't enough to protest about already! Oh, wait...

    4. Re:Intolerable by wing03 · · Score: 1

      protesters complaining about the windfarms ruining the appearance of the habitat, killing birds, killing bats, making noise, and requiring thousands of miles of new cables to be stretched across the countryside

      Here in southern Ontario, Canada, they're referred to as rich cottagers.

    5. Re:Intolerable by rainman_bc · · Score: 0, Troll

      Logging

      The day I see one person from greenpeace wipe their ass with cloth, or read a book made from hemp is the day I'll respect them. Until then, they lack credibility with me. They still wipe their ass with toilet paper like everyone...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    6. Re:Intolerable by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Over here they're Nimbys

    7. Re:Intolerable by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      a lot depends on what exactly you mean by logging.

      there are loggers in many poor rainforest contries that do a huge ammount of damage for a relatively small ammount of wood because thats the cheapest way to get certain hardwoods. (much cheaper than trying to cut just the trees you wan't and find a way to get them out).

      otoh wood and especailly the fast growing woods used to make paper etc is perfectly farmable in sustainable forests where replanting is done.

      i suspect when greenpeace etc talk about logging they reffer to the first of theese.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    8. Re:Intolerable by wing03 · · Score: 1

      Over here they're Nimbys

      That too but fortunately or unfortunately, not all NIMBYs have political clout.

    9. Re:Intolerable by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      I knew some moderator would mod me down... Sometimes this site can really piss me off...

      While I'm against over-logging, I find the greenpeace attitude towards BC forestry practices a bit over the top...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    10. Re:Intolerable by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      a lot depends on what exactly you mean by logging.

      He was clearly responding to the parent post, which explicitly listed "logging" and "deforestation" as two separate items, implying that logging itself was an evil separate and apart from any deforestation that might result. Apparently, this is supposed to be self-evident or something, but I don't understand it.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    11. Re:Intolerable by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Actually, Amory Lovins, one of the best known of the green energy types was asked a couple decades ago what he would think of a true cheap clean plentiful source of energy.

      He said it would be a disaster.

      His idea was that humans are inherently destructive and must be limited in order to prevent them from causing more damage. Such an energy source would free them their current limits.

      So, to some in the environmental movement, the problem is not just the current sources of energy, but the possibility of better sources of energy as well.

      I have problems with that viewpoint. Then again, (horrible moderate that I am) I seem to have greater faith in humanity than the zealots on either the left or right.

      Humanity's greatest asset is our ability to stupidly and blunderingly keep muddling through until we get something approaching the right solution. (And, given evolution, it's Mom Nature's way as well.)

  34. Read about Fusion by vectorian798 · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those of you who don't know what fusion is exactly, read at Wikipedia:

    Fusion Power

    Some interesting quotes:
    "The natural product of the fusion reaction is a small amount of helium, which is completely harmless to life and does not contribute to global warming. "

    "The half-life of the radioisotopes produced by fusion tend to be less than those from fission, so that the inventory decreases more rapidly. Furthermore, there are fewer different species, and they tend to be non-volatile and biologically less active. As opposed to nuclear fission, where there is hardly any possibility to influence the spectrum of fission products, the problems can be further reduced by careful choice of the materials used."

    "Although fusion power uses nuclear technology, the overlap with nuclear weapons technology is small. "

    1. Re:Read about Fusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a pretty dismal view of the Slashbot knowledge base, but I'm pretty sure they already know what fusion is.

    2. Re:Read about Fusion by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Sure they know what Fusion is:
      One part Shakti,
      Two parts Weather Report
      Add a dash or Jean-Luc Ponty and mix well.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    3. Re:Read about Fusion by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      no not really, read the post right above the GP.

    4. Re:Read about Fusion by TheSync · · Score: 1

      The reactor structure which is bombarded by neutrons due to fusion becomes highly radioactive though...

  35. Can't we try to have headlines that make sense? by geekwithsoul · · Score: 4, Informative

    A "fusion plant" is not the same thing as a "research facility." A misleading headline, in this case implying production-level fusion capacity, does nobody any good.

    1. Re:Can't we try to have headlines that make sense? by MooCows · · Score: 1

      Actually, the site where this project is going to be build is a currently a fusion technology research facility.
      Now they're attempting to construct the first 'production-level' plant there. Which means producing more power than is required to keep the reaction going.

      --
      The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
      30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
    2. Re:Can't we try to have headlines that make sense? by Goldsmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a great point. One of the reasons the US initially wasn't involved in this was that scientests here would not go along with a project that claimed to be a commercial prototype when no such thing was yet possible.

  36. Re:12 billion $$$ for... THAT?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your code is truly WTF worthy.

    Do all the bad coders meet someplace and decide to prove how crappy they are by posting to Slashdot or something?

  37. Re:10 Years? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    Reading was definitly optional for you. They said the 10 year construction can begin. They did not say this has been 10 years in planning. So their estimating it will be done by 2015.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  38. cold fusion by demon411 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    maybe they shoulds spend a portion of the money on cold fusion research...

  39. hold on by slizz · · Score: 1, Funny

    According to Sim City 2000, we don't get fusion power til 2050

  40. This opens up a lot more questions than it answers by vg30e · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First off, I am not a high energy physics person and I haven't looked into this too much, but from what I have read

    The start up power demand for this thing could be big. Separating Dueterium from the other isotopes of Hydrogen, heating things to 100 million degrees C, and the magnetic containment fields required for this research could use a lot of power in the years before it becomes a viable reality, assuming that they get practical fusion power.

    I thought using neutrons from some idea like this one http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/0 7/1635251&tid=126&tid=14 to produce tritium as a fuel source would be a better fuel for fusion.

  41. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    France is a very friendly nation for Japan and the Japs got some compensation for the deal..
    They will manage the project and France will invest some money in another project located in Japan.
    Overall it seems a fair deal for me .. everybody should be winning (including you rancorous yankees!), I don't see any problem..

  42. Re:Fusion for bad guys by yatt · · Score: 1

    why shouldn't china have fusion power if they want it?

  43. Great news! by Eunuch · · Score: 1

    Can't wait until the singularity/transhumanism so we can get beyond these silly border struggles.

    I didn't care which one they chose--just want the dang science to start!

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
  44. Re:World's Largest by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 0

    This is where they'll produce the world's largest white flag.

    No, that's where they'll be producing crispy fusion fries.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  45. What's in a name... by B11 · · Score: 2, Funny

    So are American politicians going to call this new energy "Freedom Fusion?"

    --
    insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
    1. Re:What's in a name... by RavenSlay3r · · Score: 1

      I think to meet that criteria we have to first use it in a (completly irrelivent)propaganda campaign while saveing the french from themselves, usually by defeating either the british or the germans. THAN we can call Freedom-Fusion.

      Don't worry though, i'm sure there's already legislation held up in the sennate on this one. =)

      --
      http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
  46. To All Equity Investors In Oil: +1, Patriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Dear Fusion Plant Fools:

    I have a mini-fusion reactor at home in my basement.
    I will be releasing the assembly plans after the impeachment of "President" George W. Bush is announced this evening.

    Thank for your support,
    Kilgore Trout, CEO

  47. Wow! I didn't realise /. was so anti-greenpeace by mofag · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    1) why are you Americans so incredibly proud of your 40 hour week and miserable holiday entitlement?

    2) I used to go out with a woman whose father had worked for the French atomic industry all his life (physics PHD) and he was emphatic that any proposed fusion reactor would produce just as much nuclear waste as a fission reactor if not more. I don't understand the details but just because the process in principle doesn't produce nuclear waste don't mean the practical application wont - or at least that appeared to be the thrust of his argument and he seemed to know what he was talking about. Remember the nuclear industry has lied to us and threatened our health consistently for 50 years.

    3) I work in wind power and while I don't think they should be everywhere and blighting everyone's view, renewables combined with pump storage or compressed air storage or hydrogen storage, are more than capable of supplying the world's energy needs.

    4) All us geeks like elegant solutions and fusion has always held out that promise but I think we all need to try to not mix up your personal fetishes with practical public policy issues.

    1. Re:Wow! I didn't realise /. was so anti-greenpeace by Pelops · · Score: 1

      To answer 2 briefly, no a fission reactor won't produce nuclear waste. The point is that you are fusing deuterium and tritium together.
      The problem about fusion is about to initiate fusion and to keep it going. The current way of initiating fusion is to start a fission reaction which would produce the energy necessary to initiate fusion.
      In the end, you end up having your reactor being radioactive as a side effect of how you started the fusion.
      However, new methods are being experimented like using high energy laser and compressed elements. Those methods don't produce any radioactivity.
      Radioactivity isn't bad in itself, you actually encounter it every day, and please don't go live in some place where you can find natural emission of Argon or in mountains.

      For 3, wind, solar, see power are all alternatives. They should be researched in parallels of fusion, if fusion works it will be producing energy in a very clean fashion and in a concentrated space. A lot of people are complaining about wind power because it is ugly and noisy.

      For 4, if no one had any fantasies, we wouldn't be so "advanced" (irony).

      Furthermore, since you said you work in wind power, maybe you should stop mixing your belief with possible practical public policy.
      And don't forget, if you don't do research, you don't find anything.

    2. Re:Wow! I didn't realise /. was so anti-greenpeace by mofag · · Score: 1, Interesting

      what part of my post was flamebait? I read other people's posts and it seems that the majority of comments were in the vein of being anti-greenpeace and taking shots at France because in that country they manage to strike a work-life balance unlike on this continent (NA). On the subject of French labour practices: I can see why shareholders and CEOs would fiercely defend and by rightly proud of the fact that the average US citizen loves to work all the hours they can but that is not the profile of your average /. reader surely Is this flamebait from the POV of a US citizen then? Just another example of how americans find it impossible to tolerate alternative points of view or cultures? Ok I admit that this is verging on flamebait now but I'm just lashing out bceause I'm hurt and confused :( I thought I was gonna get modded up for introducing a different perspective

    3. Re:Wow! I didn't realise /. was so anti-greenpeace by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      1) Whats wrong with a 40 hour work week? I want to make money to fund my hobbies and support myself. Not to mention we get pretty damned used to the 40 hour work weeks from high school and middle school.

      Greenpeace hatred on /.) Because they are morons? Seriously they have absolutely no farking clue about anything they argue

      2)Yes the intial forms will produce some radioactive material due to the nuetrons interacting with the containers. But it's not going to be as bad as what is produced in fission reactors. Even the waste produced in fission reactors isn't THAT bad, much better then anything the wastes and environmental effects of other sources of power generation. Plus there ARE fusion reactions which produced little to no nuetron radiation and lots of energy with readily available elemnts. Once more research is done into fusion energy we will be able to use those elemnts and create etremely clean energy.

      3) Personally I think that if were to replace all of our energy production with Wind Power, we would screw up the global climate so much that it would be worse then any global warming due to CO2 emissions.

      4)Ughh ok whatever you say, that is probablly one of the most cliche questions ever. Anyways one of the greatest things about fusion is also its energy density, once suffecient research is done we could theoritically create small mini non poluuting reactors for each and every city and town in the world. Not to mention we are thinking abotu the FUTURE here. Plus its not like they said "hey lets forget about funding non fusion renewable energy sources" The governments of all of our countries are funding almost every single possible proposal for new energy sources.

    4. Re:Wow! I didn't realise /. was so anti-greenpeace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging by your high userid of 709856, you're obviously relatively new here. Your post wasn't really "flamebait" but making sarcastic remarks aimed at a certain nation of sensitive souls, as you did in your point 1), is very likely to upset many people on this site who have mod points. I was not your moderator. You now have negative karma and a default score of zero on all your posts from now on, at least until you take steps to improve your karma. If you continue getting down-moderated in future, you will get a -1 score and possibly also get banned so you are unable to post comments. For the moment, 1) avoid posting comments which contain any sort of criticisms and 2) start doing daily meta-moderation by following the link at the top of the front page. That's the way this site works.

    5. Re:Wow! I didn't realise /. was so anti-greenpeace by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

      3) Personally I think that if were to replace all of our energy production with Wind Power, we would screw up the global climate so much that it would be worse then any global warming due to CO2 emissions.

      That's just retarded, and this retarded piece of thinking keeps popping up more and more often.

      No, it's not going to fuck up the climate. There are already human-made structures with the same kind of impact windmills would. They're called "buildings."

      There are already natural structures with the same effect. They're called "trees" and "mountains." Now, yeah, the Himalayas have quite a dramatic impact on weather and climate (the moonsoon?) Do you see a wind farm, well, even a bunch of wind farm having the same impact as just one mount in the Himalayas? Give me a break.

    6. Re:Wow! I didn't realise /. was so anti-greenpeace by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      I didn't realise /. was so anti-greenpeace

      I know with myself the honor was earned over a number of years. I used to give them money, no more. I'd take back every penny I gave them if I could. The final straw was when I attended a meeting of theirs and quickly got out of there. I was told it was a represenative meeting and they had not a clue. They are almost as clueless as PETA is. Some of them were arrested recently for animal cruelty as a matter of fact.

      If you are associated with GP, be sure you know what you are doing. Know what they are doing in your name. If you can live with that then OK. If not, bail fast. IMHO a number of them are just like pirates. They need to be keel-hauled.

      BTW it isn't fantasies, it is imagination, some inspiration and a lot of persperation. Fantasies lead you down a bad road, one that won't pan anything out because it is BS. That is why it is a fantasy. Reel yourself back in a bit, into reality. Make the world a better place for your having been here.

    7. Re:Wow! I didn't realise /. was so anti-greenpeace by Hartree · · Score: 1

      1) why are you Americans so incredibly proud of your 40 hour week and miserable holiday entitlement?

      Because the price of the French labor laws is the current state of the French economy.

      There's no "right or wrong" here. It's just a choice.

      Yes, you can have the current French labor laws and enjoy the time. It makes it hard to compete on a global scale with the US, Britain, or even more so, the developing world where labor costs are very low. It may be worth the cost to many.

      The other choice is to put in the long hours and less vacation, but have a higher GDP. That may not be worth it to some. If you have young kids, being gone can be a high price to pay, for example.

      You can't have both. Or more exactly, you can't have both for an extended period of time.

      You can try to tariff out competition on labor and land cost intensive items like agriculture for a time, but in the long run, that's a bill that still has to be paid (And, incidently, helps impoverish third world farmers. The US is guilty of that as well, but France and Japan are both big players in that problem.)

      It also tends to lead to things like the dustup with Tony Blair over reopening the agricultural subsidies that had the pundits predicting the imminent death of the EU recently.

      2) I used to go out with a woman whose father had worked for the French atomic industry all his life (physics PHD) and he was emphatic that any proposed fusion reactor would produce just as much nuclear waste as a fission reactor if not more.

      He was likely talking about neutron induced radioactivity in the walls of the reactor, which, depending on what materials are used, can indeed be a problem. However, it's a LOT less material than is generated at a fission plant, where the large amount of fuel (many tons) becomes highly radioactive and has to be switched out regularly.

      There are some questions about how often the reactor vessels of a fusion reactor would have to be changed out, but likely not that often. Gaining that sort of experience is one of the reasons for funding fusion related research.

      3) I work in wind power and while I don't think they should be everywhere and blighting everyone's view, renewables combined with pump storage or compressed air storage or hydrogen storage, are more than capable of supplying the world's energy needs.

      Yes, they could conceivably be used to power the world. However, that tends to ignore the environmental impacts of massive use of solar, wind, tide and other sources. In the small amounts being fielded, the current environmental costs are miniscule. They will grow greatly if these technologies are heavily used. And they will have to be heavily used to supply just the current level of energy use.

      Don't get me wrong. I think that using passive solar in building, photovoltaics in some areas, and wind power are very desirable. But, I think the costs associated with switching solely to them will be much higher than many who promote them think.

      4) All us geeks like elegant solutions and fusion has always held out that promise but I think we all need to try to not mix up your personal fetishes with practical public policy issues.

      This is absolutely true, but it applies equally well to those supporting the "green" power sources. They'll work well for some applications, however, powering the world with them will not be all roses.

      The truth of the matter is, our energy problems are soluble technically, in any of several ways. They will ALL lead to problems of various sorts (technical and political).

      The result of that is the real problem. That given the current political situation with each side being able to at least partly block the other, our energy problems are largely politically insoluble.

      Thus, we stick with the current fuel cycles, which have their own problems and costs (technical and political) that we can all recite chapter and verse.

      TANSTAAFL

    8. Re:Wow! I didn't realise /. was so anti-greenpeace by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
      what part of my post was flamebait?

      Um "what makes you X so Y?" ... the phrasing is inflamitory.

      Either that, or someone took exception to you proclaming yourself a geek and in the same post saying "I used to go out with a woman".

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  48. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by El+Cabri · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Germany hasn't dismantled their nuclear power plants just yet. They have a law saying that the existing plants will be shut down after a shorter than expected lifetime (20 years instead of 30) and that no new plants will be built, but this is expected to be turned around by the next legislature way before a single plant is actually concerned. I don't know whether they export lots of electricity from France. France does a lot of business selling electricity to Spain and Italy though.

    kW.h prices for individual households in France are close to the European average, but the effective price is somewhat lower since the monopoly electrical utility belongs to the state, and that the juicy profits it makes are that much tax that doesn't have to be paid.

  49. Re:The Complete Military History of France by HermanAB · · Score: 2, Funny

    The old De Gaul slogan: Follow me! I'm right behind you!

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  50. Oh no, not again. by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

    And how do we know this isn't how the sun started in the first place...

    1. Re:Oh no, not again. by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Who knows indeed... I never thought about it that way :) /me memorizes this one in order to tell it to friends

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  51. Re:10 Years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excuse me, I live in Arkansas. To really think that we're backwards here is to show how disinformed you are. Please quit trolling the boards.

  52. Re:How many frenchmen does it take to screw in a.. by Aerog · · Score: 1

    Just Frenchmen? Hook me up. I want work. Plus, I could stand to live in the south of France and improve my french from 'abysmal' to 'bad'. Jobs, anyone?

    --

    - Relativistic? That's barely Newtonian!
  53. Re:10 Years? by ChaosCube · · Score: 1

    So, are you sure you know what you're talking about?

    --
    BDR Gear
    Outdoor gear, MREs, and more!
  54. We're atheist too. by Eunuch · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Just figure out a way for Christians to fight new-agers and we'll be happy.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
  55. You miss by ImaLamer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The whole point of having extreme organizations in culture is to remind us of certain points of view and moral obligations. When something rather crazy is happening, something most people don't tolerate, we support them. Most of the time they just chime in and let us know what they think.

    It's the reason so many people are trashed on Slashdot. Gates has a vision, and a group behind him, RMS, the same - and so forth from McNealy to Jobs...

    They all hit the mark from time to time, but other than that most people are just moving on in their own lives. But if they didn't offer their opinions then a lot of people wouldn't know what to think. Just like politics, science debate, whatever. Greenpeace isn't bad, they just miss the mark. A broken mouth piece shouts a few truths every few months.

  56. Re:10 Years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I know. I live in Arkansas too. When I marry my sister; she takes MY name. Jesus! Gosh darn yankees.

  57. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by El+Cabri · · Score: 1

    And also even with their "out-of-nuclear energy" legislation, the German industry (Siemens, E.ON) has partnered with the French industry (Areva, GDF) to develop a next-generation nuclear reactor EPR, a prototype of which will be built in France, and I think the design has already been exported (Finland, something like that). So the German nuclear power industry is alive and kicking.

  58. old news? by RavenSlay3r · · Score: 1

    Not to troll - but didn't this article headline foxnews.com and google.com/news like 8 hours ago?

    --
    http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
  59. Big science by amightywind · · Score: 1

    I was the consortium luck. I'll just add, I remember reading 25 years ago how it would take at least another 25 years for magnetic confinement fusion to be commercially viable. Now it is 50 years. Big science like this rarely pays off.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Big science by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't it? Heard of a little thing called the Manhattan Project? Or maybe the Fermilab Tevatron accelerator? The Apollo missions? The Hubble space telescope? I'd say those big science ventures payed off in a big, no, HUGE way.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  60. Re:10 Years? by ChaosCube · · Score: 1

    I live in Arkansas, too, so I will make fun of my home as much as I like. Wait, you're an AC...that means you royally suck, just like France.

    --
    BDR Gear
    Outdoor gear, MREs, and more!
  61. I'm glad by Gates82 · · Score: 1
    I am glad that France won this, after all they are the world leader in nuclear energy for their own country. With Fusion the next logical step in the energy industry (from Fission) I feel that France has earned this. I wish the US would follow other countries with regard to nuclear energy.

    --
    So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?

    1. Re:I'm glad by helioquake · · Score: 1

      I wish the US would follow other countries with regard to nuclear energy.

      Not a f*cking chance. With the word "nuclear" in the subject, the common citizen of the U.S. would simply freak out and protest against buidling such thing. It's already hard enough to educate people around here about the importance of nuclear (fission) technology. What could we do not to scare them even less for something spectacularly energetic machinery like this?

      (but then, these are the same people who buy the concept of clean coals...oh yeah, call me flamebait. I can afford the negative karma...)

    2. Re:I'm glad by The+GooMan · · Score: 1

      "I wish the US would follow other countries with regard to nuclear energy..."

      The tree huggers here in the US go crazy if you even mention building a nuclear power plant.

  62. Here in Illinois by lheal · · Score: 2, Funny

    we're trying to phase out coal. That technology never really panned out for us, even though we mine a lot of good coal here. Our Amish lobby is just too strong. We'll still sell it to Colorado, though.

    We're going back to wood. The initial leading choice for the fuel is oak, since those are the biggest, oldest trees we have. When those are gone, the maple crop should be ready.

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
  63. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I was warmly hoping that Japan gets the project. In my view, Japan is so perfectly suited, technology and mentality-wise, to pull this off.

    Don't worry: To offset the possibility that some Luddite whacko is going to blow up the french reactor, they're building a top-secret identical backup reactor hidden in a rugged Japanese coastal cliff.

  64. this is so moronic by halfelven · · Score: 1

    Fusion, if feasible, could be the best thing since the fire was discovered - clean, virtually inexhaustible energy (well, not really, but close enough for now) - and the morons are fighting over who gets bragging rights?
    That's unbeleivable.

  65. Well, if anything goes wrong... by Richie+Magoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Better France than any where else!

    --
    Sig? What Sig?
  66. humm.. what a waste.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They could just build one of these..

    http://jlnlabs.imars.com/mahg/tests/mahg2c.htm

    with a measured 1500% efficiency..

    -or-

    one of these

    http://jlnlabs.imars.com/vsg/index.htm

    which has a measured COP of 3.46% and is acutally fusion..

    it already exists.. just need a large scale version of it

    1. Re:humm.. what a waste.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except JL Naudin, Bearden and co are bogus crackpots and the 'science' behind MEG and their other energy projects never checks out. About the only interesting thing on that site is the lifter projects, and they don't rely on overunity or other woo-woo concepts to work.

      BTW, Bearden (the guy who allegedly invented the MEG overunity device) admits to having a bogus degree from a diploma mill. Google on 'bearden bogus degree' for links.

  67. Re:10 Years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm an european living in Arkansas (Not the same AC tho :) ). I never been to France so I just have to ask if you have been to France since you know it sucks?

  68. Re:The Complete Military History of France by amightywind · · Score: 1

    This should be modded +5 on the basis of your research alone!

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  69. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bullshit. This stupid thing spread around way too damn much, hell it wouldn't be too hard to write something up like this for any country.

    Ever wonder why there are so many words of French origin in the English language? Familiar with that time period when France de facto dominated England, and all people of culture/nobility in England spoke French? Did you know, in fact, that the origin of swear words (such as "shit") were that they were used by the lower classes (and are more authentic english) while classier ways of saying these things (such as "manure") were used by the upper classes (and are thus French).

    France, like every other country in Europe, has won, lost, invaded, and been invaded countless times. So stop with this nonsense already.

  70. coalition of the willing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my only question is did they forget poland?

    youforgotpoland.com

  71. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    You must be too young to remember the days of metered internet. They didn't say it would be free. Just not metered. you pay $20 a month and use how ever much you need.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  72. Patrick Moore by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 4, Informative

    Patrick Moore is no longer with GreenPeace, and in fact is one if its harshest critiques. He runs a site called GreenSpirit, which at first glance appears to be "environmentalism for those who aren't brain dead".

    1. Re:Patrick Moore by gobbo · · Score: 1
      Patrick Moore is no longer with GreenPeace, and in fact is one if its harshest critiques. He runs a site called GreenSpirit, which at first glance appears to be "environmentalism for those who aren't brain dead".

      Yes, he does hold out the promise of a reasonable approach, but unfortunately he's a highly compromised advocate for industry. His history as a shill is fairly well known locally in BC, once it was outed how tightly he was wound up with the nasty spinmeisters at Burson Marstellar, but elsewhere he's held up as a poster boy. Too bad.

      ----
      Burson Marstellar - Managing perceptions that drive performance -- their slogan.

    2. Re:Patrick Moore by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 1
      Being a paid spokesperson for industry is not, in itself, a bad thing, provided you conduct yourself with integrity - that is, you give honest opinions based on the best science.

      This is entirely possible. After all, many people are paid for their opinions one way or the other - even, I suppose, some GreenPeace representatives. Whether Patrick Moore has maintained his integrity I cannot say, but the few writings of his I've seen read rather well.

  73. Re:10 Years? by ChaosCube · · Score: 1

    France really doesn't suck, as far as I know. I was mainly just being mean to that other AC. However, it is a bit of a cliche' in America - that of France sucking. I'm sure that comes from our British heritage.

    --
    BDR Gear
    Outdoor gear, MREs, and more!
  74. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

    No no... Mr. Fusion doesn't need dueterium. It runs on banana peels, and beer (it works best if you pour the beer out of the can, THEN drop the can in.), etc.

    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
  75. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by Black.Shuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That didn't happen with fission power, but perhaps it will happen with fusion power.

    It won't happen with either, so long as oil remains absurdly profitable and we're not choking to death on carbon-dioxide.

  76. Re:And If it burns a whole in the earthy by christophe · · Score: 1

    This is South of France. We in Paris, Bretagne or Alsace could live without them :-)

    Seriously: a major meltdown would mean a problem for the whole Western Europe. If the n1 or n2 economic power has problems, it isn't good for anybody.

    --
    Christophe (Don't hesitate to point out my spelling and grammar mistakes, I want to learn - Thanks).
  77. Build a coalition of the willing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a horrible choice of words. Poor taste.

  78. Now... this is a controlled termonuclear device... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...as I understand it...
    ...so if it runs out of control we will be free of France and 60% of EU ??

  79. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Approaching.sanity · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oddly enough, despite their win/loss ratio, France is still around.

    That never stops bugging me.

    --
    RTFA again for the best results.
  80. 2012: let's hope by ballpoint · · Score: 1

    ITER doesn't go "cladderadash" the first time it's fired up!

    --
    Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
  81. Give it a f*cking rest! by mark2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nice to see that on an interesting and scientific story about the possible solution to the world's energy problems the discussion decends into just slagging off the French. I thought this was a site for geeks interested in technology and science, not a playground for people to trade cheap insults.

    And you Yanks are always accusing everyone of being anti-American, can you not see any hypocrisy?

    For the record I am not French but I think the EU deserved to have this in their backyard - after all the EU is the major contributor. This is fantastic news, if this works then at a stroke the world will have access to what is essentially unlimited energy. No more greenhouse gasses, smog and you will be able to run a Pentium 7 without causing a blackout across the entire continent.

    1. Re:Give it a f*cking rest! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      And you Yanks are always accusing everyone of being anti-American, can you not see any hypocrisy?

      Actually, if this project had gone to Japan, I don't think you'd see even 1% of the cross-border sniping. There's a reason the French are sort of magnets for the comments you see here - they're notorious for dishing it out themselves. I live in a pretty cosmopolitan area with neighbors from all over the world. People from most every continent. It's funny how almost universally they joke about the French attitude, and complain about how they are treated when traveling there. Not by everyone, but often enough. Then, of course, there are my neighbors from Africa, who have an abiding loathing of the French, and a surprising affection for German culture.

      I suppose what I'm getting at is that no, I don't see hypocrisy in the way you're characterizing it. I see the French getting some of the social backlash that they seem to go to so much trouble to generate. That being said, I wish that the US was smarter about electricity generation, and had as high a ratio of fission plants as the French do. Being smart (about some things, like nukes, wine, cheese and some clothing lines) and being smug (about, well, most everything) aren't mutually exclusive. I wish the project well, and hope that the wider EU participation, especially to the extent that more of the eastern countries participate, will get the French to relax their Frenchness juste un peu.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Give it a f*cking rest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Its sad that no one wants to be "the better man" and let it rest. This article has nothing to do with french culture or social attitudes. As a scientist, we put away our petty cultural attitudes and manage to work on a more professional, academic level. Its pretty sad that other people can't do that.

    3. Re:Give it a f*cking rest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Its the fact that both sides - that includes people like you - sit here like little children and bicker 'he called me names!', 'she made fun of me' and then start throwing temper tantrums while using each other side's childish behavior as an excuse to act childish.

      Is it impossible for anyone to grow up and act a little less like god damned children?

    4. Re:Give it a f*cking rest! by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      This article has nothing to do with french culture or social attitudes

      Oh, but it does! That's the point. The facility is going to be located in France largely because of the way that the French worked the politics of the situation.

      I'll sure as hell be fascinated to watch what happens with this project, and hope it really goes well. It's just a shame it didn't get started 20 years ago... but it didn't because of petty cultural attitudes. This particular resolution to that bottleneck was not free of those same issues. So, it's done. Let's look forward to the next article that actually talks about the science (the coverage of this didn't really address anyting new at all on that front) or the practical engineering of the facility.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    5. Re:Give it a f*cking rest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I didn't see petty insults laced through the article, nor did I see blind fanatical patriotism or nationalism lining the text either.

      There are plenty of legitimate political issues that can be addressed from this article, but calling people names and throwing insults is something I would hope would be left to talk radio and drunken banter among kneejerk reactionaries.

    6. Re:Give it a f*cking rest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No more greenhouse gasses, smog and you will be able to run a Pentium 7 without causing a blackout across the entire continent.

      Pentium 7? The Septium 5 will be out by then!

    7. Re:Give it a f*cking rest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice to see that on an interesting and scientific story about the impossible solution to the world's energy problems the discussion decends into just slagging off the French.

    8. Re:Give it a f*cking rest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you man, I am so tired with all of this.
      I call this racism, what have we actually done to merit all of this ?
      Are all other countries so much better ?
      What's the problem ? Mentality is so different arround here ? Can you be a little more tolerant or don't you even know this word ?
      Talk about frenchness and blame marketing companies for using all these non sense french words everywhere and give us a rest.

    9. Re:Give it a f*cking rest! by learn+fast · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I thought this was a site for geeks interested in technology and science, not a playground for people to trade cheap insults.

      That's something so stupid that only a vim user could believe it.

    10. Re:Give it a f*cking rest! by horza · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Nice to see that on an interesting and scientific story about the possible solution to the world's energy problems the discussion decends into just slagging off the French. I thought this was a site for geeks interested in technology and science, not a playground for people to trade cheap insults.

      You don't seem to realise how much politics can ruin a large project. Look at how France insisted that the EU parliment should be in France instead of Brussels. Now the entire entire EU parliament moves twice a year at the cost of hundreds of millions between Brussels and Strasbourg.

      The EU integration project was founded by France, and their NON vote to the EU constitution threw Europe into chaos. So when it comes to the budget they decide to say NON to the UK rebate (France contributes 1.9bn compared to UK 8bn, but since a quarter of all EU money goes to French farmers the UK gets a partial refund of 3.5bn). This has now paralysed the EU.

      Of course everyone knows the damage caused by the French veto over Iraq. And this is what they do to everyone else. Within France there is massive unemployment, appalling beaurocracy, strikes every second day.

      Frankly I couldn't think of a worse country to build the reactor, unless there was a melt-down.

      Phillip.

    11. Re:Give it a f*cking rest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, we're getting the message - and it's mutual I assure you (non-French European). Wish we could kick out the British as well (off their island) - and send them to the US.

    12. Re:Give it a f*cking rest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually 'pommie bastards' is what the aussies and kiwis call the brits. Just trying to help ;-)

  82. True. by jd · · Score: 1

    That worries me, though. The US is very good at backing out, when they don't get things their way. My guess is that the US will follow their alternative approach, which means they'll invade France, once the project produces workable fusion.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:True. by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      At least it would be a quick war.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
  83. Re:Yeah, but by RavenSlay3r · · Score: 1

    Not true!

    With the creation of the Euro, Germany managed to successfully conquer France without so much as crossing the border...

    --
    http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
  84. Sure, if it were accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This should be modded +5 on the basis of your research alone!

    Sure, if it were accurate

  85. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1
    a) polluting themselves with coal plants, which actually produce more radioactive waste than nuclear plants of same energy output (not to mention other pollutants).
    A coal-burning plant produces more nuclear waste than does a nuke plant only during normal operation. That's ignoring the problem of decommissioning the plant after it becomes too old and too radioactive to maintain.
  86. 87% of France infected with mind-altering parasite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    RATS infected by a brain-warping parasite develop a fatal attraction for cats, researchers have found.

    To get into a cat and complete its life cycle, the organism changes the behavior of the rat so that it is more likely to be caught and eaten. Affected rats lose their fear of cats and are even drawn to feline smells, scientists say. They believe the one-cell parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, could also alter the personalities of humans it infects. About 22 per cent of the UK population carry the organism, which is transmitted through eating uncooked meat or contact with cat faeces. In France, it is carried by up to 87 per cent of residents. "We believe that these results may explain the reports of altered personality and IQ levels in some humans," said University of Oxford researcher Dr Manuel Berdoy, who conducted experiments to find the effect on cats. Research in Brazil has linked Toxoplasma gondii with hyperactivity in children.

    The organism's main home is the gut of cats. Rats act as intermediary hosts, carrying the parasite in the form of dormant cysts which become lodged in the brain. Rats are super-cautious animals. They are highly neophobic , which means they have a fear of anything new and are terrified of cats. Co-researcher Dr Joanne Webster said: "The behavior of rats infected with this parasite is altered so that they are more likely to be predated." Dr Webster said it was not known how the parasite affected the brain, but it appeared to reduce anxiety in a similar way to valium. Toxoplasma gondii cysts sit in the brains of humans. Evidence suggests the cysts can affect human personalities, especially in people taking immuno-suppressant drugs. "Neurologists should really be looking at what this parasite is doing and where it's going in humans," she said.

    http://www.webmesh.co.uk/rat3.htm

  87. Re:The Complete Military History of France by swanswan · · Score: 1

    Yeah, tell me about your history. When did it start ?

  88. Well . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new, cheese-eating overlords!

  89. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He can't be French. I think he won that argument.

  90. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot one thing:

    - War on Greenpeace:
    - Won. Ship blasted in NZ port (if I get it right).

    Also as a German I have to admit that all those invading of France has brought us nothing. Nowadays we have learned and we are trying to live their way of easy going ;-)

  91. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by myukew · · Score: 1

    just yesterday or the day before they said here in the german news that we actually had a positive energy import/export ratio. i guess you are not informed very well

  92. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Even today, production is only about half the cost of electricity (at least here in France): transporting it is NOT free. And the cost of a given electric line depends on the power you want it to have, so consuming twice as much power would definitely have an impact on the price you pay.

    Another factor is that a fusion reactor is much more costly today than a fission reactor, so you would probably build less of them, so you would likely have to transport your energy farther away, increasing the transport costs. Bottom line, yes you'd pay quite a bit less, but there will simply a shift so that production costs less and transport costs more: a bit like today's microprocessors, where calculations are virtually immediate but transporting data from one end of the circuit to the other end takes a long time.

  93. Cambridge had a working Fusion Reactor for 2 weeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Cambridge had a working magnetic field reactor that was able to sustain fusion for 2 weeks. It not only powered the university but also added to the local power grid. Problem with fusion is if the necessary high-pressure conditions for fusion are lost for fraction of a second the whole process stops. This makes for good safeguards (no melt-downs), but it is very difficult to initiate the fusion process.

    So fusion has been achieved via magnetic fields in the past. This is the first long-term, large-scale, commercial fusion reactor project that will produce enough power for several countries.

  94. ITER is a fiasco! by InterGuru · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I post this as a former fusion researcher and a former project manager for the Office of Fusion Energy (OFE) of the Department of Energy (DOE)

    Many decades ago the international fusion community put all of its chips on the Tokamak. It has been a disaster.

    Even if a Tokamak could produce break-even fusion ( getting more energy out than you put in) the engineering obstacles to creating an economically successful reactor are daunting.

    Many years ago, the OFE sponsored a study, Project Aries, of the costs of a Tokamak reactor. Even using the usual optimistic assumptions, the cost came in way above solar and wind power, let alone fossil fuels.

    Another symptom of the problem is that three times in a row, projects to build larger Tokamak have collapsed in the design stage. That is, even before anything was build, none could come up with a working design. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), the latest attempt, collapsed as the price tag spiraled above $20 billion, but now is resurrected. I assume that they found some technical advances, or just "cooked the books" space-station style to justify it.

    The whole OFE degenerated into a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" process where the lab directories divvied up the pie. All non-Tokamak ideas were cut off, including the one I worked on.( more below).Congress cut the OFE budget almost in half a 10 years ago in response to this.

    Now for a blatant plug. In the 70s I worked on a small project at the University of Miami, the Trisops project, which was defunded. The amount of money was not an issues ( our request was quite small), but the non-Tokamak nature, and the nerve of the principal investigator, Dan Wells, to point out that the Tokamac was unworkable.

    Last decade the Trisops machine was moved from the University of Miami, to Lanham Md, with a small NASA grant, but there is not money to run it. You can see a report on it.

    Another interesting project, the Plasmak(TM) project that is being run by Paul Koloc ( out of his garage!!).

    The holy grail on fusion research is a stable plasma structure. The Trisops project achieved it one way. Paul has noted that ball lightning, which has been known for millennia, is a stable plasma structure. He has machine that produces ball lightning, and is measuring it. He gets no DOE funding of course.

    This is a update of an earlier post Don't sell your Exxon Stock

    1. Re:ITER is a fiasco! by krysith · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another former non-tokamak fusion researcher here.

      I agree. The biggest problem with the large tokomak designs is the scale, and hence price tag, required for a self-sustaining reaction. The large price tag and long construction times mean that prototyping is essentially a decades-long process subject both to political whims and the need to be used for years after it is built just to make the building of it worthwhile.

      Imagine how fast computer science would advance if each new motherboard required an act of Congress.

      The real need in fusion is not for more money. The big money has been squeezing out the small money for my entire lifetime. We need smaller, easier prototyped designs that take at most a year and $1 million to build. It's the only way the art will advance.

      I remember emailing back and forth with Paul Koloc back in the early nineties and commiserating about how DOE just wasn't interested in non-tokamak designs. I thought that things got better after the Bussard letter (hey, where's Baldrson at?), but I guess not. Paul is probably the world expert on ball lightning, but I'm still not sure that ball lightning is a good means of producing fusion. Should he be funded? Hell, yeah! His programme is magnitudes cheaper than ITER, and we'd definitely get our money's worth of science out of it.

    2. Re:ITER is a fiasco! by deglr6328 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps because some nut in his garage futzing around with what he thinks might be ball lightning likely has little to nothing to do with controlled fusion? When I do a search like this and get 2 hits, that's not really a good encouraging sign. Has he seen neutrons? What is his confinement time etc.? So far as can see it did not exceed 5usec! not exactly what I would describe as "stable plasma structure", even small tokamaks have confinement times exceeding this by a million. The reason the tokamak is consistently the preferred method of these MFE devices is not because of an evil conspiracy to suck funding from stellarators and spheromaks. It is simply because the tokamak has time and time again through the past 40 years shown its ability to produce the hottest and densest plasmas (with the highest reaction rates achieved) of any MFE confinement method known. It's as simple as that and I'd expect someone who claims to be a former fusion researcher to know it.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    3. Re:ITER is a fiasco! by InterGuru · · Score: 1

      Paul has not seen neutrons because he is working in air. Ball lightning is stable. This has been witnessed for over two millenia. Ball Lightning

      He does not have any defitive results, but considering that he is self-financed and his probably has spent less than monthly toilet paper budget of a national lab, this is no surprise.

      His approach should be supported at a low level.

  95. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2, Funny
    Ever wonder why there are so many words of French origin in the English language? Familiar with that time period when France de facto dominated England, and all people of culture/nobility in England spoke French? Did you know, in fact, that the origin of swear words (such as "shit") were that they were used by the lower classes (and are more authentic english) while classier ways of saying these things (such as "manure") were used by the upper classes (and are thus French).


    The French have one military victory, and it messes up our language for centuries!

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  96. Energy can't be created or destroyed by RavenSlay3r · · Score: 1

    At least last time I checked... Therefore it will never be unlimited, infinite, or free.

    --
    http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
  97. Linux and fusion by Bwah · · Score: 1

    One thing that may be of interest to the slashdot community: ITER will likely be using Linux heavily. The plasma control system for ITER (the system the controls the plasma shape in real-time) was developed at General Atomic's DIII-D reactor in San Deigo. It runs Linux. The DIII-D contribution (main one anyway) to the ITER project will be the plasma control system.

    So RT Linux will end up in another interesting role.

    --
    "There's no secret. You just press the accelerator to the floor and keep turning left." -- Bill Vukovich
    1. Re:Linux and fusion by B11 · · Score: 1

      Not surprising. The philosophy is to provide (lots) of safe, cheap, clean energy to the people for free-as-in-beer (eventually as costs are recouperated or from the get-go as government-backed public works). I think both groups' share a common interest in providing for te greater good of humanity. Or maybe Fusion scientists hate Microsoft, who knows?

      --
      insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
    2. Re:Linux and fusion by Bwah · · Score: 1

      When I visited DIII-D a while back there seemed to be very very few windows machines in the control room. The majority of their computing base looked to be unix based (various flavors). I'm guessing that they built their control system on linux because it worked and it was cheap.

      Having said that, I have noticed that a lot of the data analysis community in general (i.e. people that toss around multi-gb files for number crunching and analysis) tend to like UNIX a lot more than windows. I know I sure prefer the tools available to me on Linux versus what's on windows. You can get some pretty good analysis tools for windows as well these days (PVWave) but they are expensive.

      --
      "There's no secret. You just press the accelerator to the floor and keep turning left." -- Bill Vukovich
  98. Re:This opens up a lot more questions than it answ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess ITER's list of needed things looks like this. Sea water billions of greenbacks (preferably American) worlds greatest scientists lots of room second fusion reactor to jumpstart first fusion reactor

  99. shame on you slashdot by dartmongrel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Interesting that this garbage got modded "funny" should have been modded OFFTOPIC garbage. Way to promote hate towards a nation that was eager to help the cause of American liberty in its early stages. Here's a clue for you backwards, McDonalds-brained "Americans"; take your Statue of Liberty and ship it back from where it came; it no longer stands as an adequate symbol for your country anyway.

    1. Re:shame on you slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go away you filthy Knigots or I shall taunt you a second timeah!

    2. Re:shame on you slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, I have to agree... We are hardly a free nation any more. 50 years ago maybe, but not now. Recent SCOTUS decisions only serve to enforce that impression.

      (BTW, this post confirmation picture is anoying...)

  100. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    just yesterday or the day before they said here in the german news that we actually had a positive energy import/export ratio. i guess you are not informed very well


    Not quite, Hans.. I think it's just a case of believing your own media's bullshit.
  101. Ah, a shoe-string budget. by Mulletproof · · Score: 1

    "After years of politicking, France has won the right to be the location for a $12 billion fusion research facility."

    Exactly my point. If you have 50-500 billion just lying around, there are SOOO many better things you can use it on, rather than shovel rockets into orbit to block out the sun.

    --
    You need a FREE iPod Nano
  102. Re:The Complete Military History of France by trash+eighty · · Score: 1

    funnily enough you neglect to mention the war where france invaded england and conquered it, and when napoleon ruled most of europe

  103. Environ-MENTAL-ists by wing03 · · Score: 1

    Might as well add PETA to the list.

    So has hot fusion actually produced surplus energy?

    1. Re:Environ-MENTAL-ists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, the Sun is blinding me right now...

    2. Re:Environ-MENTAL-ists by Bloater · · Score: 1

      Nope, there are two things needed: A sustained burn, and surplus. A sustained burn has been achieved (where 30 seconds is counted as sustained), a surplus is expected from ITER from most writeups I've seen, but I don't know if they'll achieve both at the same time.

  104. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    Actually, they only entered the war because they got attacked, pre-emptive war not having been invented at the time.

    Which is a pity really, because they had a slight military edge and perfect pretext for it in the Treaty of Versailles. When the Germans sent troops into the Rhineland in violation of the treaty, they were under orders to pull back if they were attacked by the French and English.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  105. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes.. "the King's English" really means french... 'cuz that's what the king spoke.

  106. Let us not forget... by bhsx · · Score: 1

    That when it comes to Greenpeace, France has their wackos as well.
    P.S. Is this the first video.googel.com link that's on topic outside of the announcement?
    /me pats himself on the back.

    --
    put the what in the where?
  107. Parent is lying by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
    A post that puts the above quote in context and essentially demonstrating the parent is deliberately deceiving people as to what Greenpeace said is further down buried in this thread, so I'll requote:
    Environmental campaign group Greenpeace estimates that if the project yields any results at all, it will not be until the second half of this century.

    "At a time when it is universally recognized that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Greenpeace considers it ridiculous to use resources and billions of euros on this project," it said.

    Given your attempt to give the above context using the following "rejoiner":
    You know, because it would be horrible to have this as an emmissions-free source of energy. Incredible.
    which relies upon a presumption that Greenpeace is against the technology rather than the timings involved in developing it (and hence has given most people who replied to this the impression that this is, in fact the case), I'm calling the parent a liar. It's very clear he both knew what Greenpeace were saying and that you were, through selective quoting and begs-the-question argument, attempting to mislead.
    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    1. Re:Parent is lying by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      which relies upon a presumption that Greenpeace is against the technology rather than the timings involved in developing it

      Or, you could do a little more homework and see that Greenpeace actually does oppose the very technology in question. Here they are quoted as saying that fusion "has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident." This doesn't come across like a position on the timing of the research. Greenpeace holds all sorts of positions that, acted upon, would be mind numbingly expensive. Even they can't think it's an either-or proposition (researching new methods, like fusion, while also making current technologies more efficient). These things aren't mutually exclusive, but Greenpeace's "anything with the the prefix 'nuc' is inherently evil/foolish" mantra is nonsense.

      The larger issue, though, to get back to your point (wherein you called me a liar), is that the quote in question, as I presented it, is going to be digested by most casual (and non-scientific) news consumers in pretty much exactly the context in which is was quoted. They're going to hear "this is nuclear, it's bad" no matter how many phrases come before or after it. Greenpeace's frequently simple-minded fan club doesn't really bother with the details, pretty much ever.

      But more to the (and back to my original) point: blocking this sort of research doesn't magically make any of Greenpeace's fantasy solutions instantly more achievable or economically viable. But if they can demonstrate to enough people that those things are worth pursuing, that doesn't make important research like this less so. If the people who speak for (or rave about) Greenpeace wanted to sound less shrill, they'd adopt a more rational tone generally. But after all these years, they keep choosing not to, and live in a emotionally inflated, eco-anthropomorphized echo chamber that doesn't actually help develop the tools that would burn less oil. They rely on fear-soaked press releases that, even to the non-savvy are transparently silly, and seem to think that grade-school level dramatics and tantrum-having will solve problems. And to the extent that not everyone involved is like that, those people should be realizing how the whinier majority of their group robs all of them of any credibility whatsoever.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Parent is lying by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Greenpeace Canada came out against using Canada as a site for ITER. The quote was "We already have a fusion generator... it's called the sun". Brilliant.

      Greenpeace has their head so far up their ass it ain't funny. They actually take evironmentalists back a step, as they have to apologize for GP tactics first.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:Parent is lying by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Sorry for replying a second time. I finally found the link, and it turns out it was the Sierra club that made the statement I remember (remove spaces to make links work):
      http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/media/iter-decis ion-03-06-16.html

      However, Greenpeace is just as bad:
      http://www.iter.ca/backgrounders/iter-subsidylette r-02-2003.html

      Scroll through to Fusion is Neither Clean nor Safe Read their seni-true statements. Sure fusion ain't perfectly clean, but it is about 6 orders of magnitude cleaner the fission, and infinitely cleaner than coal.

      They talk about if a meltdown occured, the potential contamination of the reactor would have to be cleaned up... but neglect to mention the negative aspects of nuclear... or coal... instead of metal being irradiated, people die when problems occur in THOSE power plants.

      The fact is, Greenpeace and Sierra want us to use less power. Maybe that isn't a bad idea... but it makes me skeptical of their evaluation of any new technology. If it doesn't fit their ideology, it will be branded as "anti-environment" whether it is true or not.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:Parent is lying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you store the large ammounts of Tritium? It is biologically vey bad and is radioactive with a half-life of 17.6 years. That dumps the energy out quickly so you get the "full benefit" of that get-up-and-glow feeling.

      Tritium is also mechanically just hydrogen. You can't store hydrogen. It migrates fairly quickly out of a solid steel container.

      The products at the end are also radioactive. They aren't heavy metals and they don't mean a problem for the thoushandth generation, but they will still be a problem.

      Fusion may be better than fusion, but it is by no means a clean technology.

    5. Re:Parent is lying by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Fusion may be better than fusion, but it is by no means a clean technology.

      But neither is coal, natural gas, or any other hydrocarbon. Wind and solar won't even come close to powering the 21st century, and fission is definitely loaded with potential safety issues on the supply, operations, and disposal fronts. So why would anyone object to the research this new facility is going to do? It doesn't stop research into other areas, but it has the prospect of developing something that could be a huge offset for the equally risky, and vastly dirtier hydrocarbon approach.

      So, bringing up the logistical complications of working on fusion isn't the same as showing it to be unacceptable, or even as bad as using irreplaceable oil/coal. I'm all for geothermal, wave/tide, hydro, biomass, solar, and wind where they can be used to chip away at the overall load. But "chip" is the key word there.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  108. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by SlashDread · · Score: 1

    Who knows?
    This is an expirimental reactor.

    Oh, and the people dissing Greenpeace? See previous statement.

  109. cute chicks? by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yea I like cute volunteer chicks like that. "I wish everybody would stop fighting and polluting the environment. It'd make me feel much safer and secure."

    They're just dying to find a nice highly-paid computer programmer like me. Then they can afford a hybrid car and go out to lunch with all their cute volunteer friends. And when I come home she'll tell me about all of the important volunteer activities she did that day. And I'll tell her about my day. About how my ideas are helping my huge company become more profitable and expand their energy-hunry operations. But she'll feel all cozy and safe and secure knowing that I've got a good job allowing her to do her volunteer work with Greenpeace.

    1. Re:cute chicks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and then you can bang the hell out of her! Save the whales! Greenpeace!

    2. Re:cute chicks? by Refrag · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds like a reasonable trade-off after whoring yourself out to your company like that.

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    3. Re:cute chicks? by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm glad I gave you a chance to vent a little frustration at people who work hard to make good money. So what do you do for a living, Refrag?

    4. Re:cute chicks? by karnal · · Score: 2, Funny

      Easy. Refrag is the little man in my computer that keeps fragmenting my hard disk, even though I keep defragging it.

      *blank stare* What?

      --
      Karnal
    5. Re:cute chicks? by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 1

      So what do you do for a living, Refrag?

      Oooh, I like this -- the next logical step from the 6th-grade staple: "My Dad is a fireman, what does YOUR Dad do?"

      Come on, Refrag, answer the question! Tell us before EraserMouseMan and I ditch out to pick up some peace activists with a fetish for corporate-whore computer programmers...

      --

      my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
    6. Re:cute chicks? by Refrag · · Score: 1

      I am also a corporate whore. But, I'm one that doesn't see anything wrong with a couple balancing out their give/take to/from society. Unfortunately, my wife also works for a large corporation so I give to society through volunteerism.

      I guess you're all whore.

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    7. Re:cute chicks? by Refrag · · Score: 1

      I'm glad someone got it.

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    8. Re:cute chicks? by identity0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude, have you ever known any 'activist chicks'? The ones I've known have been fairly intelligent and more likely to be a engineer or businessperson than most girls. Do not confuse proactive, activist types with the stoner chicks...

      Although, knowing how to play guitar will get you more of both kinds of girls than being a rich programmer.

    9. Re:cute chicks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want a corporate whore grlf so I can have an hybrid.

    10. Re:cute chicks? by EraserMouseMan · · Score: 1

      I agree. Activist chicks are usually pretty smart. And the other thing about them is that they actually believe in something. Some even use logic and reason to convince people that their viewpoint is correct. That takes guts and even a lot of guys will wimp out with the, "Aw man, you know, everybody has different beliefs and that's fine." A girl seems twice as cool if she sticks up for what she believes in.

  110. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    This is a research reactor.
    You could build it in greenland, and still the best in the field on the world would want to research there, just because its the best place to be if you are in the field.

    Its like TESLA, or LHC. The facility doesnt come to the people, the people come to the facility.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  111. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In my view, Japan is so perfectly suited, technology and mentality-wise, to pull this off.

    In my view, France is as suited as Japan for that, even more perhaps. One of the reasons that makes me think so is that France is the only country (with usa) that currently operates the technology to treat nuclear waste. Japan doesn't have it and is sending its to France. Sure, Japan could have it too, but they didn't invest in nuclear as much as France did. Another good point for France, is the CRNS (french-based institute with massive international participation and worldwide recognition for its atomic and subatomic research.)

  112. Er, no. by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting
    What it means is that the cavemen would have built a wheel that worked that day, rather than spending fifty years wondering what colour it should be.


    Sometimes, you just gotta shut up and build the damn thing. The problem with fusion is not that it is impractical or environmentally unfriendly, but rather that the fusion researchers seem to be spending time and money in writing papers, rather than actually producing something.


    I would be willing to bet that, if the American Government passed a law stating that all non-fusion powerplants were to be shut down (in stages) over the next ten years, we'd have fusion power before the time was up.


    How can I be so confident? Because necessity is the mother of all invention, and because those fusion researchers won't get their papers published if there's no power to run the printing presses. You can't expect people to solve such complex problems overnight, but you CAN expect people to become a whole lot more focussed, if it was made very clear that their personal future depended on it, rather than some abstract "future" sometime long after they're dead.


    If you want fusion even quicker, get the scientists involved up into Alaska, then provide power in winter only on those days they move forward on the science or technology. Give them the materials and funding they need, but give them some good reasons to do so.


    Better yet, if you want fusion power in five years or less, move the top 100 richest people, along with Congress and the US Civil Service into Alaska, and not provide power in winter, except on those days they get the scientists to move forward. Then we'd see some dramatic improvement in the sciences.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Er, no. by MinutiaeMan · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's just brilliant. You seem to think that "necessity being the mother of invention" is exactly equivalent to the ability to turn on scientific results like water from a faucet. Certainly need helps drive invention (and I have no doubt that things could progress a bit faster with more urgency), but why do you think that the scientists (note: not the politicians) are deliberately stalling on a project like this?

      I'm not contesting that there are some solutions that could/should be pursued right now. But you (and Greenpeace, apparently) seem to be under the mistaken assumption that pursuing a fusion power plant automatically precludes the possibility of constructing new "conventional" (i.e. using existing technology) power plants today at the same time.

    2. Re:Er, no. by MinutiaeMan · · Score: 1

      Also, to further our analogy (sorry for double-posting; I hate it when I hit the "Submit" button too quickly!), I think that fusion would be more equivalent to a caveman trying to push/pull a cart with octagons as the wheels. Yeah, it'd work okay, but the technology wouldn't be ready for general use yet. So the tried-and-true pack animal would still be more helpful (despite the high levels of methane they give off).

    3. Re:Er, no. by susano_otter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think it's so much a question of "stalling" as it is a question of "cutting corners".

      The Manahattan Project went ahead with its atomic pile testing before the smarty men had confirmed that the pile would not trigger an unstoppable world-destroying chain reaction. That's called cutting a corner, and that's probably why The Bomb was ready in time for its wartime application, instead of being ready ten or fifteen years later, after all the due diligence had been completed.

      So I'm with the grandparent poster, really. Maybe ten years is unrealistic, but I'm betting that if it came down to an immediate, obvious question of survival of the human race, the fusion smarty men would find a LOT of corners to cut, and we'd have a quick-and-dirty humanity-saving solution rolled out just in time.

      In other words: the main reason we don't have working alternative energy solutions today is because we're still not sufficiently motivated.

      Also, it should be obvious by now that eco-nutjob screeching isn't what's going to toggle that motivation thing on. If Greenpeace really wanted us to care about solving the energy problem, they'd be leading the way in oil overconsumption. The sooner we start to seriously feel the oil shortage, the sooner we'll get off our asses and find a replacement. (As an alternative (eheh), the Greenpeace asshats could exercise just a little patience and self control, since they shouldn't have to wait too much longer for the oil shortage thing to really kick in.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    4. Re:Er, no. by danheskett · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In other words: the main reason we don't have working alternative energy solutions today is because we're still not sufficiently motivated

      Part of the reason is that even in more "progressive" European nations oil and dirty engergy is very heavily subsidized.

      There is an idea of "true cost". Right now when you pump the gas and pay the station you aren't really paying the full cost - that cost is being deferred - the cleanup costs after drilling is done; the cleanup costs of that gallon of gas when it is burned, etc.

      When these costs are done being deferred you'll see a lot more motivation.

    5. Re:Er, no. by Dharma's+Dad · · Score: 1
      What it means is that the cavemen would have built a wheel that worked that day, rather than spending fifty years wondering what colour it should be.

      Ummm, only the straight ones would be wondering what color it should be - the gay ones would have known immediately, "Black, dahling, BASIC black, maybe with a nice contrasting white stripe".

      But then the straight cavemen would get hold of it and add raised white lettering and garish chrome and gold centers.

      And so it goes....

    6. Re:Er, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would be willing to bet that, if the American Government passed a law stating that all non-fusion powerplants were to be shut down (in stages) over the next ten years, we'd have fusion power before the time was up.

      Maybe, but in the mean time the price of energy would go through the stratosphere. All those scientists who'd be working their asses off trying to figure out fusion would need to get paid, after all, and who do you think is going to pay for it?

      And then, what if the scientists don't figure it out? We've just forced the American public to take an enormous gamble, and lost.

      How can I be so confident? Because necessity is the mother of all invention, and because those fusion researchers won't get their papers published if there's no power to run the printing presses.

      Sure, but if we don't need fusion, then why should we waste money creating it? Maybe we should instead spend money on curing cancer and HIV, and leave the fusion discoveries until another day.

    7. Re:Er, no. by not-enough-info · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I would be willing to bet that, if the American Government passed a law stating that all non-fusion powerplants were to be shut down (in stages) over the next ten years, we'd have fusion power before the time was up.
      Brilliant! ...Now where's my cheap HDTV and 80MPG car?
      --
      ---k--
      </stupid>
    8. Re:Er, no. by jd · · Score: 1
      Probably, that's true. However, paying between $5 to $10 per gallon of gas is already considered on the expensive side, and it does pay for some of those costs you mention at least.


      (Now, if Americans woke up tomorrow and discovered that gas cost $10 a gallon, there would either be a civil war or a major rethink on efficiency. My bet is on the former.)

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re:Er, no. by jd · · Score: 0
      It's not even necessarily cutting corners. Because academics and departments get paid according to the number of times a given paper is cited, there is financial incentive to be quotable. Novel research is not as quotable, because (by definition) fewer people are as interested in it. Therefore, novel research is considered a potential liability.


      Cutting corners is sometimes a good thing - as you noted, the early researchers in fission technology cut corners all the time. In hindsight, some of those corners should not have been cut - the early Windscale reactors were based on an over-cheap design that caught fire - but in general, the early designs were not much worse than the current advanced designs, even though enormous amounts of time, effort and money have been invested. The investment has been worthwhile, sure, it just wasn't essential in producing something that worked.


      Oil may hit peak any time almost any time. After that, prices will spiral. Global warming is accelerating and is potentially reaching the point where it will be self-perpetuating and therefore irreversible. Fission reactors are producing too much waste and there's nowhere to put it. "Alternative" energy sources are having their own impact on the environment and may not be sustainable on the scales needed.


      We need energy, that is certain. What we need, therefore, is a means of obtaining enough energy with minimal impact, so that the more unfriendly sources can be reduced or eliminated. We don't have the luxury of time - we've squandered too much of that and we've really no idea of how much is left. Fusion - however inefficient, however sloppy the design, provided it generates more power than it uses by more than the power output of a conventional coal or oil generator - is needed ASAP. We can improve on the design later, when we have bought ourselves enough of a later to worry about it.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    10. Re:Er, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Better yet, tie electrodes to their balls and give them a 1KW shock every time they sit down to rest.

    11. Re:Er, no. by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1
      I would be willing to bet that, if the American Government passed a law stating that all non-fusion powerplants were to be shut down (in stages) over the next ten years, we'd have fusion power before the time was up.
      No, we'd have a civil war before the time was up.
      --
      Fred

      "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
      -RMS
    12. Re:Er, no. by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      But I prefer C to BASIC...

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    13. Re:Er, no. by GermanShorthair · · Score: 0

      Brother vs. Brother over the cost of gas? My bet is the mooooon!!! WOULD CRASH!! into the EarF! before you got a clue.

      --
      Karma: Bad
    14. Re:Er, no. by Meph_the_Balrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sometimes, you just gotta shut up and build the damn thing.

      I don't know about anyone else, but I would feel a whole lot better knowing they had gotten the math right before they attempt to kickstart what is in essence an artificial sun no more than meters from the surface of our planet.

      IMHO Fusion should be able to provide far more generated power per square foot of "reactor" than a decent sized wind farm, which means less wasteage of resources (in some countries, arable land can be, and is classed as a resource). I agree with the poster of the parent that something needs to be done, but in this particular case, I wouldn't personally advocate haste, just in case.

    15. Re:Er, no. by miquels · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Part of the reason is that even in more "progressive" European nations oil and dirty engergy is very heavily subsidized.

      What countries, exactly ? Generally in the US gas is way cheaper than in Europe

      In cheaper countries in .EU, gas is around EUR 1,- a liter, which translates to around US 4.50 a gallon. In .NL it's even worse - around US 6,- a gallon.

      It's more like that oil is very heavily taxed ..

      --
      Living is a horizontal fall
    16. Re:Er, no. by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      The whole idea of moving the US government to Alaska is preposterous -- at current "global warming" trends, Alaska will have a climate more similar to the state of Washington in ten years. The bureaucratic red tape and environmental impact studies would have pushed the project out far beyond ten ears anyway, making such efforts (your "carrot and stick" scheme) a moot point. Besides, Dubya is already planning on moving much of the US government (ala House Speaker Jim Wright's legacy) to Texas already, via the BRAP (Base Re-Alignment Project).

      BRAP is a really stupid idea that will concentrate the Federal government and US military into large conclaves susceptible to terrorist attack next to our porous southern border. (of course, nobody ever claimed that Dubya was a genius, only a former dope smoking, womanizing, coke tooting son of the Texas "aristocracy").

      I consider the award of the fusion project construction to France to be a true godsend. At least they will not outsource the project to China or India, which is what would have happened if the USA had won the competition. Besides, Texas already has an 18 mile oval trench in the ground that they are just now trying to fill in.

    17. Re:Er, no. by 6th+time+lucky · · Score: 1

      What good would a civil war do when the oil is in other countries?.. its gonna be a whole lot bigger than 'just' a civil war.

      (Currently paying $5.50 US a gallon -in australia)

    18. Re:Er, no. by iamplasma · · Score: 1
      The Manahattan Project went ahead with its atomic pile testing before the smarty men had confirmed that the pile would not trigger an unstoppable world-destroying chain reaction.

      I can't imagine a better argument against cutting corners than this, and it most certainly doesn't inspire me to think we could make fusion in five minutes if we really wanted to. While I do understand that fusion isn't actually THAT deadly in explosive force on its own (the majority of a H-bomb's power comes from an outer fissionable material, and without this you have a "non-destructive" neutron bomb), I am *not* a fan of putting together a giant fusion reactor, without first making sure it won't kill everyone within 50 kilometers. Sure, we need fusion urgently, but not so urgently to justify such an astronomical risk. Plus, even with cutting corners, I still think you are massively overestimating how much things can just be sped up.

    19. Re:Er, no. by Aceticon · · Score: 1


      Part of the reason is that even in more "progressive" European nations oil and dirty engergy is very heavily subsidized.


      I live in Holland. Last time i checked 1L (0.26 gallons) of 95 octanes gas was 2,3 euros (about $2.8) at the pomp.

      That's $10.5 per gallon

      How exactly is that subsidising fuel????

    20. Re:Er, no. by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      Where is this magical european country you're talking about?
      In Portugal we pay over 50% taxes over the price of gasoline.

    21. Re:Er, no. by danheskett · · Score: 1

      The taxes paid to pay a little bit of the true cost of that gallon of oil.

      If you figure in the costs to environment, cleanup after drilling (which just gets abandoned), delivery, cleanups, spills, etc you'd realize what a gallon of gas really costs. The cost paid at the pump is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and consumers of other goods in all kinds of subtle ways. From tax breaks, to environmental clean up funds, to disaster cleanup and all of that - by the time all thats figured in a gallon of gas will cost well more than $5/gallon.

    22. Re:Er, no. by danheskett · · Score: 1

      It's easy. Is that what a gallon of gas costs when you figure *everything* in?

      When the government of Spain picks up half of a 10B tab for cleaning up a wrecked oil tanker, or the government of France pays to replace outdated and seeping oil tanks owned by bankrupt distributors, or the the US lets an oil company off the hook for environmental damage to drilling grounds that cost is not passed on to you, but rather, on to the taxpayers at large. Hence, a subsidy.

    23. Re:Er, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in southern Louisiana. I don't drive, but every time I come back to Louisiana from school, a topic of conversation with the family is gas prices.

      The price for premium went up to $1.90 USD and my parents almost fainted.

      Gas prices between $5 and $10 USD aren't "on the expensive side"--they're totally unthinkable in certain areas of the world.

    24. Re:Er, no. by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Hey, I said I wasn't sure that ten years was a reasonable "corner-cutting" timeline for fusion.

      But I do think that, push comes to shove, it'll be closer to ten years than fifty. And if we're at that point, the survival of the people within 50 miles of the reactor is probably going to be the very least of our worries.

      The thing is, human history is about humanity meeting its needs and catering to its desires, despite the risks. Take industrialization, for example. It brings all sorts of benefits, improving both human survivability and quality of life. But it carries with it the risk of total destruction of the human race. It's not like human nature is going to make a special change just for fusion. We'll try, but in the end, it'll be be dire need that provides the motivation. And looking back over human history, I think you may be massively underestimating how much things can be sped up.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    25. Re:Er, no. by VVrath · · Score: 1

      Here's your 80MPG car: Get a Renault Clio 1.5l Diesel, and get over 100 MPG at 55mph.

    26. Re:Er, no. by not-enough-info · · Score: 1

      Because that particular French car company totally cares what the US Government mandates.

      --
      ---k--
      </stupid>
  113. I'm in! by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    Count me in, I'd be happy to help build a fusion power plant, or even a testing facility. While I'm not such a great physicist, I am an excellent systems administrator!

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  114. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0

    66% of your electricity cost is infrastrucure. The remainder is the cost of the fuel.

    --
    Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

    http://financialpetition.org/
  115. Re:The Complete Military History of France by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    Or -1, Troll, because this is at least the 5th time i see this stupid list reposted here on slashdot.

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  116. Score one for bureaucracy by gillbates · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The ITER project started in 1985, and there has been a running fight over money and location since

    So it took 20 years for ITER to make a decision? That would make even Washington D.C. bureaucrats proud...

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:Score one for bureaucracy by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      The real issue has been cheap oil (at $20/barrel throughout the 20th century), and keeping up the status-quo. We're only now at the point ($60/barrel, going on $100) where the powers that be can't just ignore the real world, but have to step up and adapt to reality, risking change in the status quo, including their own power positions. In fact, if anything, this technology will be so sophisticated that it will mean even more concentration of power that can be abused.

  117. Re:The Complete Military History of France by arkanoid.dk · · Score: 1
    Ahh... I see... because France is a lousy military nation, France is also the wrong country to place a research plant in. That really doesn't make any sense now, does it? Denmark, being a lousy military nation too (heck, we even supported Napoleon!), is the leading nation when it comes to fuel cell and wind power research. Danish technicians develop sophisticate equipment for sattelites, ISS and other research projects. This just prove that you doesn't have to be a military freak nation or having some sort of war-mongering madman as leader to be in the lead of research, science and developement. Look at Switzerland as well, a thousand years without a single war, and where does Europe place CERN (the father of WWW)? ... correct! Switzerland...

    I don't really understand you reasoning here...

    --
    Arkanoid
    gethostbyintuition()... why not?
  118. peak oil misinformation by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    Okay, FYI - _nobody_ knows when oil will peak. Here's why:

    1) The information used to determine this depends on all known sources of oil remaining constant. Guess what - they're still finding (some major) new sources of oil.

    a) They're also developing technology to extract previously-unextractable oil (oil sands, oil shale, etc.)

    2) The information put out by various companies and countries is _highly_ suspect, if not downright fraudulent, in many cases. When countries routinely use the same numbers for how much oil they think they've got left, year after year, this becomes a little obvious.

    The peak may have already been reached, according to some. According to others, it'll be a few years, to some, in 20+, or in the far future.

    Either way, I wouldn't be expecting some universal concensus on when the oil peak has or will come. I'd be much more concerned with superbugs or global warming (whether caused entirely or partially by human activity or not), than with the question of peak oil.

    1. Re:peak oil misinformation by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Also in line with your statement, Conco Philips has developed a
      method to do NGR ( natural gas reclamation ) and make gasoline
      from natural gas .

      Alot of Gas wells are simply capped by ppl like T. Boone Pickens
      because he saw the future of energy would use more natural gas .

      Take all the methane burned off from all the sewer gas from all
      the world , and reclaim it as well .

      Alot of prospects there .

      Peace,
      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    2. Re:peak oil misinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might start to worry about peak oil when gas hits $7 and the supermarket shelves are empty.

    3. Re:peak oil misinformation by rduke15 · · Score: 1

      Guess what - they're still finding (some major) new sources of oil.

      But "Overall, worldwide oil discoveries have been declining steadily for the past 40 years" and "Annual consumption has exceeded new discoveries every year since the early 1980s". (http://www.energybulletin.net/3168.html)

      I wouldn't count much on new discoveries.

      They're also developing technology to extract previously-unextractable oil (oil sands, oil shale, etc.)

      This may provide some expensive oil, but not much. It eventually has a natural limit: when you need more energy to extract the oil than the energy you will get from the extracted oil.

    4. Re:peak oil misinformation by MSBob · · Score: 1
      I'm quite interested in the subject of oil and gas. Care to mention those major oil fields that have been discovered recently. It doesn't even have to be something on the scale of Ghawar. Just point me to some recently (after 1975) discovered field with say, sutainable output of 2 million bpd... must've missed something major.

      The only reason we don't know if the oil peak is here or not is because Saudi Arabia is not transparent with their production and capacity numbers. Every other producing country has since peaked. Saudi Arabia may have peaked also but they are maintaining reservoir pressures by pumping obscene quantities of water into their oil fields. This prolongs the peak output but does nothing to stop depletion.

      I can state with 80% confidence that oil will have peaked by 2010. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your oil consumption binge. Go buy yourself a hummer, just don't run complaining about its resale value in a few years time.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    5. Re:peak oil misinformation by raeler · · Score: 1

      hmm, maybe Hibernia in 1979? or is that too small?

      I was under the impression that the problem is that there are not enough refineries to handle the crude that is being produced now. Saudi Arabia could produce an additional 1mbpd but the high-sulfur content makes it difficult for the big players to refine it.

      Just wait until winter, when all the diesel that normally gets stockpiled over the summer months isn't around. That should get oil prices moving.

      --
      This is my post. See sig above ^
    6. Re:peak oil misinformation by MSBob · · Score: 1
      Saudi Arabia might be able to stretch their capacity to another 1mbpd but that's about it and even that does not appear very likely. Meanwhile the world demand for oil keeps growing at a steady 3% every year (roughly 2mbpd as of 2005). If all we have is one or two mbpd of spare capacity it's not hard to figure out when the max supply vs current demand curves cross over. It'll be fairly soon.

      BTW Hibernia was discovered in the sixties and will never achieve 500kbpd nevermind the puny 2mbpd needed just to cope with the current rise in oil demand.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    7. Re:peak oil misinformation by Retric · · Score: 1

      We have 200+ years worth of coal + fission energy so using a lot of energy to extract oil can still be worth it.

  119. This is cheap by hode · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Spend $12 billion to develop clean, renewable fusion energy or spend $180 billion guarding dirty, limited oil sources. Seems like a pretty easy decision to me...

    Imagine if we had spent $180 billion on it in 2003 in a manhattan project style research program instead of fighting the Iraq war? We'd probably have limitless energy already.

    1. Re:This is cheap by The+GooMan · · Score: 1

      "instead of fighting the Iraq war"

      That didn't take long to come up. :-(

    2. Re:This is cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We did have a manhattan project style research plan to make practical nuclear energy. It was called "The Manhattan Project". Perhaps you heard of it?

    3. Re:This is cheap by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Now I'm not one to respond to trollers often (not you, the parent post), but $180b is a hell of a lot of gasoline that Bush lied and said would be cheaper. $2.20/gal in Williamsport, PA.

    4. Re:This is cheap by DimGeo · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: IANAA (I Am Not An American). It's probably easier to let France test the concept first. After all, there are at least several more years before fossil fuel supplies begin to deteriorate significantly. If the French are willing to take the risk (the financial risk if you wish), then let them.

  120. Summary: by imsabbel · · Score: 1, Troll

    They got money!
    My pet project didnt!
    This sucks!

    (and i wouldnt want money to be given to some ball-lighning gurus either....)

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:Summary: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be running under the (incorrect) assumption that the best projects get all the funding.

  121. Who cares about Greenpeace? by glrotate · · Score: 1

    Other than a few Europeons and the fruits and nuts of California, does anyone take this group of Luddites seriously?

  122. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Refrag · · Score: 1
    polluting themselves with coal plants, which actually produce more radioactive waste than nuclear plants of same energy output
    Could you explain how this can be true? I don't doubt you, but I honestly would have never thought this to be the case.
    --
    I have a website. It's about Macs.
  123. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Moridineas · · Score: 1

    The actual numbers are (I'm not parent poster)

    for 2003:

    Produced: 560 billion kWh
    Consumed: 519.5 billion kWh
    exported: 53.8 kWh
    imported: 45.8 kWh

    so that's a lot of importing, but more exporting, as you say

    by comparison the US in 2002

    produced: 3.839 trillion kWh
    consumed: 3.66 trillion kWh
    exported: 13.36 billion kWh
    imported: 36.23 billion kWh

  124. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know this is flamebait (and pretty funny, besides they deserve it), but I always have to take issue with
    - American Revolution
    Sorry, Ameri-centrists, but France saved our ass on this one. Saying the colonists defeated Britain on their own is like saying the Northern Alliance defeated the Taliban. That's a little bit of hyperbole, but France was nevertheless instrumental in our victory. I try to tone down my French-bashing just based on this debt of gratitude.

    As for the World Wars, I'm wondering what country you could have put in France's position and expected to do better. Holding off Germany for years in WWI while the U.S. decided whether or not they wanted to do anything isn't something to be scoffed at. U.S. gloating over these wars reminds me of two boxers going at it for ten rounds, and then in the eleventh round another fighter who had been sitting safetly in the locker room jumps into the ring and pops out the fatigued opponent, and then mocks the other fighter for not having the strength to do it themselves.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  125. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    yes, I'd have expected high-tech stuff to be in Japan too, but Japan is a geologically unstable country - a fusion reactor is an expensive bit of kit, and if it can be located in a less unstable country then yay! It'll reduce the costs of building an earthquake-proof building for it too.

    iirc Japan currently has difficulty supplying itself with power and until it's producing power (somewhere near the end of the project, I suspect) it's gonna need a good source of power to guzzle from - France (and, if necessary, the power infrastructure of the rest of Western Europe - Japan being an island next to China and the back end of Russia)

    Oh, and it'll be closer to CERN for access to clever particle physicist boffin types.

    But most importantly, it'll be close enough to the UK for education establishments here to organise visits

    --
    FGD 135
  126. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yeah, Napoleon did a good number on Europe.

    But England was invaded by the Normands. They were Scandinavians that had just started to speak French a few generations back.

    The Saxons (and other groups) which came ca 500 years before the Normands were quite similar culturally to the Scandinavians; they used runes, could probably understand the language, etc.

    (-: The British Islands were the thing to do for a few hundred years if you lived up North; just go see Ireland -- obviously worth letting someone die for! :-)

  127. ITER is a grand idea but ....... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 3, Informative

    The bay of Fundy moves more water in and out every 13 hours than
    all the water of all the rivers in the world combined .

    If we could figure out a way to harness it, we would be good on
    power for a VERY long time indeed .

    http://www.valleyweb.com/fundytides/

    The 3 gorges damn is huge, the world's largest dam at present time,
    but the power generation possible at fundy is just staggering .

    I think underwater screened turbines would prevent sea life
    from being churned up, and prevent silting like the 'dam'type
    hydro electric tidal generators built in france .

    Some under sea power turbines are being deployed near malaysia .

    Also in the fusion arena, I think the bubble fusion principle
    makes alot more sense economically, and has already demonstrated
    that it will work .

    Keep in mind it is not cold fusion, it is high temp based .

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/04030 3080222.htm

    Peace,
    Ex-MislTech

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    1. Re:ITER is a grand idea but ....... by justins · · Score: 1
      The bay of Fundy moves more water in and out every 13 hours than
      all the water of all the rivers in the world combined .

      But the Fundies don't even believe the world is more than five thousand years old, so good luck getting them to sign off on a "hydroelectric thing." They don't hold with that.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    2. Re:ITER is a grand idea but ....... by lbarbato · · Score: 1

      The bubble fusion principle has been shown to work in the same way that the current experimental fusion reactors have - by pumping in a whole lot of energy, you can get some back.

      However, while fusion research has led to a point where they have a research path to hopefully generate more energy than they've put in, bubble fusion is no more than a high temperature curiosity right now.

      --
      Dance like no ones looking and love like it's never going to hurt.
    3. Re:ITER is a grand idea but ....... by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/04030 3080222.htm

      Per the Phd working on it:(last sentence in article)

      "We are not yet at break-even," Taleyarkhan said. "That would be the ultimate. I don't know if it will ever happen, but we are hopeful that it will and don't see any clear reason why not. In the future we will attempt to scale up this system and see how far we can go."

      Slashdot is full of nay sayers , and detractors .

      I am optimistic they will make headway with this because it already
      cost thousands of times less to build, and the materials involved
      are common, simple, and inexpensive .

      Bubble fusion just makes sense monetarily .

      Price and availability do have an affect on science .

      Ask the dying bucket of bolts called ISS .

      ITER is a grand idea, but to scale to power plant abilities
      it would cost far more then the billions already slated for
      a so called small reactor .

      Size alone of these reactors would border on the super collider
      that was started in texas then abandoned and now used to urban
      warfare combat training . *sigh*

      A bubble fusion reactor on the other had could end up powering
      cars, homes, boats , planes, spacecraft, etc etc .

      Once they get past break even, something ITER hasn't done yet ,
      then we could see something amazing .

      Budget limitations will make bubble fusion more appealing to
      more scientists due to its low cost to experiment in restrospect
      to plasma based toriod magnetic monsters costing billions .

      Keep in mind Acetone is urine, and we could end up taking a leak
      to power our world, pretty ironic if u ask me .

      Peace,
      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  128. That'd be an improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you follow the road next to Coor's stream towards its source, you will come across a hippy selling jerky on the side of the road next to the stream. Miles from civilization. I've often wondered where he relieves himself during breaks.

    So next time you have a Coors, remember it's got just a hint of jerky selling hippy in every can for that authentic Rocky Mountain experience.

  129. Re:The Complete Military History of France by jepe · · Score: 1

    Well, it seems you skipped the Charlemagne era...
    And the before that the fact that it was Franks (not yet a country at that time) that stopped the islamic progression from taking over what is now France (and the rest of nortern europe by consequence).

    Oh and you also forgot the first crusade...

    I am not from France, but despite all their issues, French had their share of victory in the past. Otherwise they would not be on the map, they would have disapeared.

  130. Re:The Complete Military History of France by ettlz · · Score: 1

    Regardless of my views on the wisdom of Greenpeace, the bombing of Rainbow Warrior by the French DGSE in New Zealand waters was an act of outright terrorism. Not only should've the perpetrators been brought to book, but the French government should've been keel-hauled (either at the UN or elsewhere): turning a blind eye to terrorist training in one's country is one thing, but isn't ordering a bombing in another country an act of war? And if not, why not?! If they'd done it these days in a U.S. port, would Bush be invading France?

  131. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UK and France declared war after Poland was attacked.

  132. Have *some* respect by gsasha · · Score: 2, Insightful
    PLEASE, OH PLEASE dont talk out of you ass.
    Disgusting. (Yes I know I quote you slightly out of context, but just listen to yourself).

    Ok, the guy showed his ignorance. Know what, I wasn't aware of that fact too, so what?

    He actually took the facts he knows, did a 2+2, and arrived at an apparent contradiction. Good thinking! I am ashamed that I didn't arrive at same conclusion without knowing about the iron's stability. I'd dare to say that that's the way of thinking that advances science.

    So, OK, he asked a question, and you happen to know the answer. Does not make him stupid. I know this is Slashdot and all, but he really gave you no reason to bash him.

  133. Re:The Complete Military History of France by gnuyarlathotep · · Score: 1

    Please note, the bloke who created that webpage and the vast majority of those quips is English and NOT American.

  134. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Denmark, being a lousy military nation too
    Good navy historically, though. But they even lost to Sweden (some of all the times). :-)
    Danish technicians develop sophisticate equipment for [...] ISS
    Pray tell me, how many hundreds of percent has the ISS gone beyond the projected costs? 5? 10?

    Well, the shuttle still makes it look cheap to build and run, so let us put that at NASA and not Denmark. :-)

  135. And right on time, too by lheal · · Score: 1

    Germans are so efficient.

    Now the French will be their power-producing, cheese-eating, wine-drinking thralls.

    Why doesn't the U.N. do something?

    --
    Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
  136. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by Maxite · · Score: 1

    There are three types of hydrogen:
    Protium, or the most common one, and the one we often associate with Hydrogen, has only a proton in it's nucleus.

    Deuterium has one neutron in the nucleus, as well as one proton. It is found in "Heavy Water".

    Tritium has two neutrons and one proton in the nucleus, and is radioactive.

    --
    Ah, you found me!
  137. MOD PARENT TO OBLIVION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read what gid said:

    "From what I thought"
    "But what I don't get"
    "I'm just a computer programer though, I only took one college physics course. but still am rather curious as to how the universe works."

    He's just being conversational and curious and admitting he doesn't know and then parent here, FUCKNUT that he us comes in with his "PLEASE, OH PLEASE". What a DICK.

    Mod parent down, he's the arrogant twat in the physics class that thinks because he understands it well that it's perfectly acceptable to laugh at those who do not. I mean, what kind of person are you to LAUGH at someone who is asking a genuine QUESTION.

    Sure there are no dumb questions but a lot of inquisitive idiots. But his question was pertinent to the topic and hardly out of order considering he flagged over and over again that he didn't know, but wanted to.

    I am praying to the Mods that you get given bad karma, because if ever there was something that deserved bad karma it's what you just did.

    P.S.

    oh, and learn to spell "Fusing 2 lighte" FUCKNUT.

    "dont say it couldnt" use apostrophes, FUCKNUT.

    MODS DO NOT READ PAST THIS SENTENCE THIS IS FOR IMSABBEL'S EYES ONLY, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

    And your explanation of the physics, while correct, sucks the maggoty shit out of a rotting corpse's ass you hooked out of the river next to the filthy cave you call your home. Best eat you had since your mum died I bet.

  138. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Tiny+Elvis · · Score: 1

    I believe the coal contains trace amounts of radioactive elements, which are released into the atmosphere when it is burned.

    Just google nukeular er nuclear vs. coal or something like that.

  139. Will it finish, though by Mr+Pippin · · Score: 1

    Sounds like "Super Collider II: This time, we're going to finish it!"

  140. Radio-isotopes in the coal. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1
    They are thinking of using bottom ash as a raw material for Uranium production.

    Both bottom ash and fly ash would be low level radioactive waste if it was'nt explicitly excluded from the regulations.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  141. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Meumeu · · Score: 1

    I would have been worried about their level in maths if that ratio were negative...

  142. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by Erik+Hensema · · Score: 1

    The radioactivity of the container is no real problem. The radioactivity is relatively weak and decays to acceptable levels in a few decades. Then the containter is reusable in the plant.

    --

    This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

  143. And this distiguishes them from who? by infonography · · Score: 1

    [INSERT NAME OF ORGANIZATION, GOVERNMENT, POLITICAL PARTY, OR RELIGION HERE] to be predominantly made up of people who don't think for themselves and have an psychological need to "get even."

    I don't join organizations because I am anti-social (it's beside the point), I don't because; like Treebeard, they are not on my side.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    1. Re:And this distiguishes them from who? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      You're right actually. Now I come to think of it, I do have the same view on most organizations, so perhaps it is unfair to single out Greenpeace.

      Also, anyone who quotes Thucydides in their sig gets bonus points from me.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  144. You almost had me convinced. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1
    The holy grail on fusion research is a stable plasma structure.

    You lost me there.

    Every Tokamak is a stable plasma structure. It is just not hot enough to reach energy breakeven.

    A florescent bulb is a stable plasma structure.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  145. Re:The Complete Military History of France by kisak · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Its funny how our American cousins have started attacking one of the great European nations, France, after some French politician tried to stop the current US government making a mistake comparable to Vietnam again. I guess it is a nice way to unify a people who are sending their young to die in yet another avoidable war.

    The French, the British, the German, the Russian, the Italian, the Austrian (or these nation states ancestors) have all at different times dominated military in Europe and too often created havoc on the European continent, not to mention the rest of the world. Many of the European wars have been because one of the great nations got the military upper hand (or thougth they had) and wanted to revenge their last loss of land to one of their European neighbours. Look for instance how the land area behind France and Germany has traded owners through the centuries (latest land trade was of course after WWI and WWII). There is symbolic significance that Strasbourg is where the EU parliment is located, a very German and French city in culture, architecture and language for obvious reasons (just look at a map).

    And European history is a reminder for all great nations to be careful before starting a war since the rule of war is that it only create losers and no winners. The US should be careful not to inherit (seems its already too late) the European tradition of starting uneccessary wars when having a large army. Just look at China's incredible long history to find an example how a dominant nation does not necessarily at all times need to expand or start wars with all its neighbours (remember Chinese invented gun powder, while it was the Europeans that used gun powder to conquere the world).

    After all that, lets look at the last part of your "freedom fries" list. In WWI France had the main war on their own land and sacrified 1,400 ,000 men. US, which won the war in your history book, lost 116,000. And of course we all agree that WWII that followed, where 40 million people died all over the world, only was won by the US joining in 1943. Especially since the Germans lost 93 % of their forces fighting the Russians.

    Anyway, making frog jokes is a nice way for your right wing media, like the Wall Street Journal, to stop USians ask any awkard questions why US marines are dying 3 per day in Iraq at the moment.

    --

    --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

  146. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Bloater · · Score: 1

    It is Britain that declared war on Germany in the second world war, and it was in response to the invasion of Poland, not in response to being attacked.

  147. France will become home to fusion reactor: by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 1

    I Surrender!!

  148. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Knetzar · · Score: 1

    I'm probably just showing that I'm not an EE, but doesn't this equation have to balance:
    energy produced + energy imported = energy consumed + energy exported

    With these numbers where did the excess go? ~200 billion kWh is a lot of energy to jsut disappear.

  149. fusion by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    is this really better than spending the money to cover a few hundred square miles of otherwise useless sunny land with solar collectors? What's the percentage of bright sunny days in the Sahara desert?

    1. Re:fusion by jlanthripp · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with that, except that (IIRC) the amount of energy expended to create a solar cell exceeds the energy it will produce before it reaches the end of its life expectancy...

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    2. Re:fusion by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      For old single-crystal silicon type solar collector payback in energy was 10 years or more (and some did not have useful life that long), but newer-tech thin-film and multicrystalline ones have companies claiming them to have 15-20 year life and 2 year energy payback . Anyway, I'd like to see $10 billion thrown at that problem rather than continuing the already 30+ year old fusion powerplant dream, my whole life that scene has gone nowhere fast

  150. That depends. by jd · · Score: 1

    If the French eat enough garlic, they could hold the US forces off indefinitely.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  151. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by kisak · · Score: 1

    France has a very impressive engineering history and a strong scientific community. For technology, just look at Concord and Airbus. There are good reasons why France got this project against the wishes of Japan and the USA, and it is not only the French arrogance and stubborness.

    --

    --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

  152. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  153. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Jo_2521 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And get this: one of the largest importers (the largest?) offrench electric energy is Germany, who have outlawed and disbanded their nuclear plants due to Green misguided pressure, and are now

    The last nuclear reactor is currently[1] scheduled to be shut down in about 27 years. Sorry, they're neither outlawed nor disbanded, there're just no new ones to be built (Apropos "disbanded": in 2003 nuclear energy accounted for 27% of germany's electricity production, while regenerative energies amount for about 9% compared to ~5% in 1991). At least we try.

    Oh, and by the way: In 2003Germany had an export surplus of 8 billion MWh. High imports from France are mostly due to it being "routed" through Germany towards the Netherlands and Italy.

    a) polluting themselves with coal plants, which actually produce more radioactive waste than nuclear plants of same energy output (not to mention other pollutants).


    Maybe. According to this site Germany has reduced its CO2-Emissions by 19% between 1990-2002 while France decreased theirs by 1.9%. This may or may not have anything to do with coal plants but was the first thing I found on google - so anyway ;).

    b) paying for el. energy to France, which is produced by nuclear plants which are close enough to Germany, that if a meltdown happened, they would be just as affected!

    Ever heard of something called "leading by example"? Also, do you think that you (wherever you live) would be unaffected by a major nuclear meltdown?

    [1] currently meaning that after the next election these plans will probably be scrapped by the conservatives.

  154. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a British citizen living in the US, I am astounded by the fact that you think the Wall Street Journal is right wing...

    You have now idea how right wing things can get here in the US.

  155. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
    Could you explain how this can be true?

    It's not true. What the OP means is: a coal plant normally releases more radioactivity into the environment than the equivalent nuclear plant. Which is true as long as nothing ever goes wrong with the nuclear plant or the handling of its wastes.

    The nuclear plant still generates orders of magnitude more radioactivity than the coal plant.

  156. names ? mod parent up by free2 · · Score: 1

    In fact the main french "green" political party is clearly against nuclear power:
    http://lesverts.fr/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=60

  157. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    True. But then there was a 'phoney war' and they didn't do any fighting until they were attacked in France.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/phoney_war.ht m

    Anyhow, I still think they left it dangerously late.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  158. France is also researching cold fusion by chud67 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you follow cold fusion research, the list of countries that participate in the annual International Conference on Cold Fusion includes France, Japan, and other countries that don't have a lot of natural resources such as coal and oil.
    Since the US has coal and oil, we don't have as strong a motivation to look into fusion.

  159. Re:The Complete Military History of France by cashman73 · · Score: 0, Troll
    But obviously the word, "asshole" is clearly still french. Because (a) you commonly hear the phrase, "pardon my french, but you're an asshole," or some variant thereof. (b) The french desperately need a good word to describe themselves, and since they have such enlarged anuses from being buttf***ed so many times in history, "asshole" seems most appropriate.

  160. your sig by subtropolis · · Score: 1

    Very funny. Enron, perhaps?

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    1. Re:your sig by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 1

      I bet you think that sig is made up. Actually, investment guru Peter Lynch read it in a brokerage report (I reworded it slightly).

  161. it has nothing to do with "values" or "rights" by a137035 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To these groups, any given tree or platypus has more of a right to be where it is than we, the humans, have to put in yet another road for our SUVs People like you live in scifi phantasy land, where you actually think that we can make tradeoffs between more environment or more technology. But we can't. Our current level of population, our current resource consumption, and our current environmental destruction aren't sustainable. The longer we continue, the harder the eventual crash will be. It doesn't matter how much technology we throw at the problem. So, worrying about platypuses and trees isn't about "values" or "rights", it's about long-term survival of our own species.

    1. Re:it has nothing to do with "values" or "rights" by Troed · · Score: 1

      Our current level of population, our current resource consumption, and our current environmental destruction aren't sustainable

      Prove it.

      Oh, you mean with today's technology?

      Weird limit to set.

    2. Re:it has nothing to do with "values" or "rights" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prove it. Oh, you mean with today's technology? Weird limit to set.

      No, you need to prove that technology is even potentially able to improve sustainability. Prior to the development of technology, our societies were sustainable and had been stable for tens of thousands of years. Since the technological revolution, we have more death, disease, environmental destruction, and poverty, both in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of percentage of the human population, than ever in human history.

      The problem isn't technology itself (which I'm all for), it's the combination of technological development with unchecked population growth.

    3. Re:it has nothing to do with "values" or "rights" by Troed · · Score: 1

      Prior to the development of technology

      No such time has ever existed. There's always been inventiones, ways to make life better. You _do_ know that we affected climate already thousands of years ago?

      My proof is thus in our history.

  162. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry. The joint resolution clearly spells out that Japan will get to host the next step, the prototype for a commercial plant ("DEMO"). After that (2050 at earliest, though!) the commercial plants can be built anywhere and actually generate electricity for the paying customer.

  163. Misunderstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Treebeard IS on your side.
    It was all a misunderstanding.
    He's still waiting for you to join him.

  164. Anti-nuke craziness by drwho · · Score: 1, Interesting
    It's refreshing to see so many people here willing to stand up to the enviro-ninnies like Greenpeace. They really are luddites and even worse. But what I had hoped to see when people came to the realization that Greenpeace was stupidly again Fusion, is that Fission isn't really as bad as the anti-nuke propaganda would have us believe. For instance, there is a great number of types of nuclear fuel, some of which can be used to make bombs and some can not. There are many new designs that are more safe than older ones. Plutonium is much less dangerous that is commonly thought. It's a good idea to learn a bit about how nuclear power plants work, I suggest the Wikipedia article on Nuclear Reactors as a good starting point.

    I grew up in a "no-nukes" family and it took many years before I realized I was being fed fairy-tales.

    1. Re:Anti-nuke craziness by drwho · · Score: 1

      It's rather odd that I was moderated down. I guess my dislike of Greenpeace upset someone.

  165. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by JanneM · · Score: 1

    I have nothing against France (only some French), but I was warmly hoping that Japan gets the project. In my view, Japan is so perfectly suited, technology and mentality-wise, to pull this off.

    Either country would have been fine; the reasons are of course political (as in people-related - "politcal" is not a negative), not technical.

    That said, the French have a huge amount of experience with nuclear power. You might also want to take a look at the accident statistics of the Japanese nuclear industry; it's not encouraging reading.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  166. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by rsborg · · Score: 1
    ...So the German nuclear power industry is alive and kicking.

    You forgot the addendum: "in spite of their shortsighted government".

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  167. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Atanamis · · Score: 1

    I believe that most power plants are not highly adjustable. Even if they are "adjustable", the cost of adjusting them up and down exceeds that of just letting them overproduce. Since under-producing means lost revenue and angry customers, most utilities tend to overproduce.

    --
    Atanamis
  168. Similarity by JanneM · · Score: 1

    I think the main reason americans and french dislike another is because they are so similar to each other.

    If you are american or french, really think through why you hate usa/france. Congratulations, now you know the reasons the rest of the world is getting fed up with you as well.

    Actually it was pretty amazing; the childish utterly over-the-top hissy-fits of the americans in the wake of the Iraq debacle ("freedom fries"? Come on!) was probably the only thing that could actually make the rest of the EU to actually overcome the dislike of the posterior-orifice attitude of the french political class.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:Similarity by LEPP · · Score: 1

      Actually it was pretty amazing; the childish utterly over-the-top hissy-fits of the americans in the wake of the Iraq debacle ("freedom fries"? Come on!)

      I suppose you do not see the irony in your statement. The French maintain strict controls over language in their country. So much control that they have a ministry in charge of it. What ever happened to "le e-mail"... or was it "la email"? I will tell you. It was decreed that "le e-mail" was not "French" and the government came up with a "French" equivilent. This is a country obsessed with preserving the "Frenchness" of their language.
      So, jokingly, some Americans called french fries freedom fries for a while just to needle the French a little. Guilty. It's a JOKE. Lighten up.

      I love the French. They gave us such innovations as French Dressing and Freedom Fries.

  169. No repect to FUDers by imsabbel · · Score: 1



    If you think THAT way of thinking (not knowing basic facts,not bothering to get to know WHY everything else seems to not care about that "obvious" misstake, but jumping to conclusions ("doesnt work")) helps science, then welcome to the dark age.

    Its all in the spin of the post.

    And he DIDNT ask a question. He spread FUD. His main message wasnt "how does it work?". It was "that is nonsense that cant work how stupid those dumb d00des are..."

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:No repect to FUDers by gid · · Score: 1

      And he DIDNT ask a question. He spread FUD.
      I did ask a question, my whole post was meant to be of a questioning nature. Sorry if you didn't read the whole thing missed the key phrases.

      then welcome to the dark age.
      Yes, but in medieval times, only the military, some pioneering unversities, and a select few feudalistic kingdoms were on a network which was back then called ARPANET. Web browsers, Slashdot, and it's users did not yet exist to set me straight.

  170. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    use them to split water and feed home powering fuel cells.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  171. 1945 quote: "atomic energy nearly free" by peter303 · · Score: 1

    When they started building fission nuclear plants in the 1950s, it was said that energy would be nearly unlimited and nearly free. Lots costs overlooked then and overlooked now for fusion.

  172. nukeular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, I know about the Elmer Fudd option but didn't know that Google spoke George W Bush.

  173. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    why not make a maser and use a laser pulse to smash the atoms together?

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  174. This is great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is wonderful news. I even heard that some scientist named Otto Octavius is going to run the program!

  175. Conversion by QMO · · Score: 1

    I'm just sad that the article messed up the conversion.

    It said "100 million Celsius (180 million F)"
    When it should have said "100 million Celsius (180 million +32 F)"

    Science reporting these days.

    --
    Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    1. Re:Conversion by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      i guess your trying to make a joke but just in case anyone takes this seriously.

      the original figures are probablly only to about 10% tollerance. all the standard tempreature measurement systems have thier zeros close enough to absoloute zero that when considering reactor type temperatures the offsets are just not significant.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  176. fusion a very radioactive proceess by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Most fusion reactions generate surplus neutrons which have to go someone. The wall materials of fusion reactors will gradually turn radioactive. The slight advantage is that these radioactive substances tend to have shorter half-lives than U/Pu fission products. Fusion waste will have to be shielded and displosed of like fission waste.

    1. Re:fusion a very radioactive proceess by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Sure, but the vacuum vessels of a reactor are a lot less material than the entire fuel charge of a fission plant.

      Also, the fuel in a fission plant has to be regularly changed as it depletes the U 235 in it.

      The reactor vessel will only have to be changed at relatively long intervals when neutron embrittlement becomes a problem. (And you can reduce that with judicious choice of materials.)

  177. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by haggar · · Score: 1

    There is radioactive material in the coal, which is released into the atmosphere both during mining and processing, as well as during the burning.

    The quantity of such material is about twice as much as in the case of nuclear plants, per watt-hour of energy. And we have not even talked about the other (non-radioactive) pollutants.

    My physics teacher from high school used to say that he'd much rather live on top of a nuclear plant rather than 1 Km from a coal plant of same energy output. Much helathier.

    --
    Sigged!
  178. What? by QMO · · Score: 1

    Not again.

    --
    Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  179. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by haggar · · Score: 1

    Good points, but if geological stability was a factor, I wish theytook Finland (home sweet home) as an option: Finland has the most geologically stable territory by FAR in Europe. Basically, Finland would be better off to offer any of the E*U countries to send their nuclear waste here and bury it, because the risk of an earthquake is so low that the nuclear waste will have a long and safe life here, unlike anywhere else in Europe, and then the pollution would eventually arrive to Finland as well.

    --
    Sigged!
  180. Hydro by QMO · · Score: 1

    I figured any power other than hydroelectric in SC2K was a waste of money.

    Wind is more expensive (in terms of space and $).
    Anything else has to be rebuilt every 50 years.

    --
    Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  181. Re:10 Years? by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry but not all Brits think that France sucks, I for one think that they make very nice cheese. Shame all the the stuff they send to the UK tastes like earwax though.

  182. Um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The tree huggers . . . go crazy"

    Too late. Already there.

  183. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by hawkfish · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A coal-burning plant produces more nuclear waste than does a nuke plant only during normal operation. That's ignoring the problem of decommissioning the plant after it becomes too old and too radioactive to maintain.
    I would interpret the OPs comment to mean "dumps more radioactive waste into the environment in a completely uncontained manner." A decomissioned nuclear plant may be radioactive, but it is all in one place and easily contained. By contrast, a coal plant's radioactivity has been dumped into the atmosphere and who knows where it is. Probably in your lungs.
    --
    You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  184. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by vdo2000 · · Score: 1
    Don't worry: To offset the possibility that some Luddite whacko is going to blow up the french reactor, they're building a top-secret identical backup reactor hidden in a rugged Japanese coastal cliff.

    First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?

  185. green *cough by toQDuj · · Score: 1

    What greenpeace is saying is that they'd have used the 10b for windmills now (actually they didn't count the service costs over the years), where it'd supply 7.5 million households with energy (bbc source).
    Now consider the fact that this 10b is coming from virtually any big country in the world and it is poo in comparison with other projects. 7.5 million people is not quite a dent of the world population either.
    The real fuss (and that it has been for the past 10 years (an bigger design was proposed years ago)), was that Japan wanted to become the center of fusion research, but so did Europe. After years of debate by Worldwide comissions and comittees (which together must have cost more than 10b over the years).

    I for one am glad this research is to be set in France. Actually, my teacher in nuclear fusion was none less than prof. Cardozo, head of the european research team. Trust me, I'm proud :).

    b.

    --
    Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
  186. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "asshole"

    An 'ass' is a donkey. We anglo-saxons use the word 'arse' to refer to the anus, so in that context, it must be french.

    Bloody septics. :)

  187. Parent Not Offtopic by HotButteredHampster · · Score: 1

    Tom Clancy's book "Rainbow Six" involves a radical environmental group which conspires to knock the human population back to less than six figures by means of a biological agent.

    HBH

    --
    "Smart is sexy." -- D. Scully ("War of the Coprophages")
    1. Re:Parent Not Offtopic by overshoot · · Score: 1

      Welcome to /. moderation.

      --
      Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    2. Re:Parent Not Offtopic by HotButteredHampster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's the first time I've tried to do that, though I've seen it done successfully before. I guess I was waiting for someone to reference that book, and then to see it marked "offtopic"... and me without mod points.

      HBH

      --
      "Smart is sexy." -- D. Scully ("War of the Coprophages")
  188. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    imagine a beowulf cluster of these babies...

  189. They shoud approach Paul Allen by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Informative
    WHile most of the other billionares are into holding on their money via their company, Paul allen has shown a propensity for persuing interesting and new technology.
    • He started into the Cable industry in 1990.
    • He funded X-prize winner and is backing the next ship.
    • Transmeta, while it did not succeed, it did change the industry and make them focus on lower power useage.
    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  190. Deja Vu by doswarrior · · Score: 1

    I now know what it feels like to be a sim in SimCity. We have to make sure they run enough water pipes to the reactor or no one will wanna work there.

  191. Not like it matters by overshoot · · Score: 1

    It's not like getting modded down is going to affect my karma worth mentioning. Just enjoy the show -- it's all comedy anyway.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  192. assuming the way by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

    "Would stopping someone like that from operating, saving countless lives as a result, and getting to watch those people have actual elections also rate below a "science project?""

    If that would involve an illegal war, killing countless lives as a result, and getting to watch those people have an occupying foreign military force and continious chaos and violence: yes.

    "I was referring, of course, to the French attitude about the "unilateral" US position on cheese tariffs."

    What? The US wanted to form a coalition of the willing cheese-eaters too? ;-)

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
  193. Re:Cambridge had a working Fusion Reactor for 2 we by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

    You wanna show us some links?

  194. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this is half the idea.. if the whole fusion thing goes "kinda" wrong, we have finally got rid of the useless french frogs.

    I wonder if Canada is next on the "Fusion Plant" hit list??

  195. Fusion - the energy of the future. by AlphaBrav · · Score: 1

    Always has.

    Always will be.

  196. Well... by isny · · Score: 1

    "The natural product of the fusion reaction is a small amount of helium, which is completely harmless to life and does not contribute to global warming. "
    I for one welcome our high-pitched French-speaking overlords.

  197. Correction by Ironsides · · Score: 1

    Give us humans a rational cause (global warming etc.) and we'll ignore it.
    Give us a 'direct' feeling (evil enemy in (cold) war, money for gasoline), and we'll react promptly.


    Give us humans a cause that occurs so slowly that no one will notice it if they haven't been observing for a hundred years or that requires a PHD to understand the nuances of (global warming etc.) and we'll ignore it.
    Give us a 'direct' feeling that is right in front of our noses, we can actively see over the course of a month or year or two (evil enemy [we can see and feel] in (cold) war, money for gasoline), and we'll react promptly.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  198. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Informative

    I remember when those claims were made about nuclear power, about how it would be so cheap that it wouldn't be metered.

    It was originally expected that "fast breeder reactors" would be used to recycle and re-enrich the spent fuel rods that came out of power plants. Instead, Carter used execuitive order to put a blanket ban on those types of plants. Fast breeder reactors would drastically cut hte amount of high level radioactive waste that comes out of power plants and cut the costs of operating a plant. Consider the nuclear version of recycling.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  199. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Cinquain · · Score: 0, Troll

    Did you ever notice that there is no personal hygiene words of french origin! The first one that comes to ones mind is really of Italian origin and came out - not surprisingly - around the time the Italians invaded France. Look it up!

  200. Gravity, Fission, Fusion and Science by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1

    But what I don't get is when you fuse an atom, energy is released, but when you split an atom into two, energy is released as well. How is this not perpetual motion? If fusion energy was possible, couldn't you just take your nuclear waste from fission and split it back into uranium and whatever again. :)

    Hehe... I think this was the concept in Star-Wars and it will always remain science fiction. The production of ultra-heavy elements (such as Uranium) does not occur naturally in solar fusion because not even that gravity or heat is enough to overcome the energy barriers required to fuse the nuclei into such heavy compositions. To create such elements, a supernova is required. Conversely, these ultra-heavy elements are reasonably unstable and are therefore somewhat easy (comparitively) to split. Splitting lighter elements is never discussed because imparting the energy required to do such a thing is beyond our means.

    Fusion is practical, today, from Hydrogen on up to Tritium-Boron. I believe that the Tokamak at Princeton was able to achieve over unity in controlled tests all the way up to boron-tritium fusion, but was never funded to the level required to make it commercially viable.

    One must appreciate the fact that even the new French reactor does not appear to be planned to be a commercial plant. It looks to be an experimental reactor in the same vein as the Tokamak. These torroidal plasma reactors are really for much more than the study of fusion as well; They are very much for the study of high-temperature plasmas and extremely strong magnetic fields (including the elusive torsion fields). Such conditions provide a rich experimental environment for physical phenemona much more exotic than fusion (e.g. gravity research).

    For straightforward energy generation, my bet is on focus fusion, but politics are an issue. Focus fusion uses various plasma-guide geometries to force plasma to compress at a point at very high energy producing super-high temperatures where boron-tritium fusion occurs. The resultant fusion highly ionizes and accelerates the plasma linearly where a particle decellerator can directly convert the accelerated charge into current through induction. Focus fusion holds the promise of hand-held fusion for energy production, plasma rifles and extremely efficient propulsion (all a direct result of the accellerated high-energy plasma). But with all such high energy production technologies that could be mass produced, the politics of the big energy companies loosing control of their revenue stream tends to punish funding for research.

    While we are on the subject of exotic physics, some of you might find this interesting...

    --
    The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
  201. Perfect for the French by IxianMach · · Score: 1

    Great. Give a major engineering problem to a bunch of people who will try to invent a new screw.....because the screw was not invented by the french. Good idea. It will never work. I suppose this is good news for the other guys in some small lab that will solve the problem without trying to build a star in the lab.

  202. Hard to say... by Goonie · · Score: 1
    As I understand it, the AP1000 is just an improved PWR design, so it presents pretty much the same proliferation issues as any other:
    • There's plutonium-239 created in the spent fuel, but it's heavily contaminated with pu-240. None of the existing nuclear powers makes bombs with such material; whether it is even possible or not is not known with public information. It's certainly not at all easy, given that even with weapons-grade plutonium you need to develop an implosion design rather than the gun design possible with U-235. Predetonation (the tendancy to blow itself apart before enough reactions have occurred to make a really big explosion) would be an even bigger problem with reactor-grade plutonium than it is with bomb-grade.
    • I believe you *can* use a PWR to make bomb-grade plutonium, but they're not the best design to do so; CANDU reactors are much easier to use for that purpose because you can load and unload fuel while the reactor is running.
    • The unburned fuel can't be used in a bomb; but if a nation has the technology to enrich uranium to levels suitable for use in a nuclear plant, it's not much tougher to enrich it to the concentrations needed to make a bomb.
    • The radioactive waste, of course, can be used to make a "dirty bomb".
    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  203. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Moridineas · · Score: 1

    Not sure--but it seems logical enough--there are periods when not enough energy is produced (brownouts, blackouts, etc) so there are periods when too much energy is produced--i guess it just dissipates? too bad...

  204. 12 thousand million dollars is chump change by cgtaylor · · Score: 1

    I must point out that George Bush's government is spending at least 5.8 billion(US) dollars a month. I heard today that is currently at least 8 billion(US). We could have lots of whiz-bang science for that kind of money, to say nothing of world hunger or AIDS.

    United Press International
    November 18, 2004

    WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is spending more than $5.8 billion a month on the war in Iraq, according to the military's top generals.

    That is nearly a 50 percent increase above the $4 billion-a-month benchmark the Pentagon has used to estimate the cost of the war so far.

    Source:
    United Press International
    November 18, 2004
    The Army alone is spending $4.7 million a month while the Air Force is spending $800 million a month transporting soldiers and flying combat missions. The Marine Corps is spending $300 million a month, the four service chiefs told the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday.

  205. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem isn't that France sucks militarily it's the 30 hour work week. They should get some results from their research by 3050.

  206. not at all by subtropolis · · Score: 1

    That's exactly what i thought it was. Just wondering which company it referred to is all.

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    1. Re:not at all by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 1

      Sorry, Lynch didn't mention the company or the broker. It was probably in the 1980's.

  207. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Orbital+Observer · · Score: 1

    France-bashing is so outré. :)

    --
    ---- I have nothing more to add.
  208. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Rayonic · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Its funny how our American cousins have started attacking one of the great European nations, France, after some French politician tried to stop the current US government making a mistake comparable to Vietnam again.


    Actually, France got us into the whole Vietnam thing in the first place. And, while there were many mistakes, clearly the biggest one was not following through with post-war support of the the south Vietnamese government.

    And now France wants us to cut off support to the post-war Iraqi government? That's not surprising, since the French government has publicly stated that they'd like to "counter-balance" (weaken) the United States on the world stage.

    And yes, this certainly is the post-war stage. No remnant of the former government remains, and the whole insurgency would collapse without foreign support.
  209. wanted to point out by UlfGabe · · Score: 1

    they are not dropping 50 b notes onto this in one year...

    if it takes 10 years to be built its only 5 billion a year....

    if it takes 50 years... well then we have a different situation on our hands..LOL

    --
    Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
  210. Re:The Complete Military History of France by sydres · · Score: 1

    battle of Hastings 1066

  211. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You missed the part where Napoleon's army took on several coalitions of over 5 different countries and the only thing that REALLY defeated them was a Russian winter.

  212. Based on a true story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one cheered when Mr. Burns impersonated a hippy and sank their ship. It was great!

    In real life, the French actually did sink Greenpeace's flagship, The Rainbow Warrior.

    The bombs were probably planted by divers, but they must have infiltrated the organization as well, in order to plan the operation.

  213. YHBT YHL HAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, cat got my tongue.

  214. Re:The Complete Military History of France by CrkHead · · Score: 1

    Also seen here.

  215. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Punboy · · Score: 1

    I hope you realize that "shit" is from german...

    --
    If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
  216. Parent does selective quoting with an agenda by Prune · · Score: 1

    Choosing to quote only references that support your thesis, given that there are good arguments against it, is quite dishonest. This criticizes the 'proof' you mention, showing that it is not nearly as general as you would have us believe.

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  217. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Familiar with that time period when France de facto dominated England, and all people of culture/nobility in England spoke French?

    IANAH, but I think it's misleading to say that France (the political entity) de facto dominated England.

    The Normans, who would today be considered French, did dominate much of England. But once William the Conqueror became sovereign King of England, although he remained vassal to King Henry of France in name, he could act with a pretty free hand.

    And when Henry II of England married Eleanor of Aquitaine, in actual fact England dominated France.

    Of course, that is a political statement rather than a cultural one... the people who controlled England, down to the local landowners, still spoke French.

  218. Re:The Complete Military History of France by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
    Actually, the Americans didn't have a Navy during the Revolution. Washington's 'victory' at Yorktown was achieved only with the help of a substantial naval blockade by the French.

    They also supplied the revolutionaries with most of their gunpowder and arms. Until a Frenchman by the name of DuPont decided to set up shop here in time for the War of 1812, and whose company would go on to supply gunpowder for US forces until WWI, and be one of the primary contractors for the Manhatten project.

    Laugh all you want. A company founded by a Frenchman gave us the bomb.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  219. It's all sales. Selling memes, or products: by Hartree · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was at one of their mercury testing events where they served coffee that was brewed with solar power. They're nice people, and the chicks were really cute.

    You should go to some industry shows for the chemical, oil and coal industries. They'll serve you coffee brewed with electricity generated at a coal plant. The reps will be very nice people to you, and the chicks in the booth will be really cute.

  220. Re:The Complete Military History of France by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
    And yes, this certainly is the post-war stage. No remnant of the former government remains, and the whole insurgency would collapse without foreign support.

    Which is more or less why George H.W. Bush decided that invading Iraq back in '91 would have been a mistake.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  221. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by lee1026 · · Score: 0

    the anwer to that is simple: high voltage and superconductors. as we all know, power = I^2 * r. really high voltage is going to make I go really low. Super conductors have 0 r. so basically the power wasted in transfer is 0.

  222. Re:10 Years? by Zonnald · · Score: 2, Funny

    Um, your not supposed to eat the protective wax covering.

  223. Overlap with weapons technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Although fusion power uses nuclear technology, the overlap with nuclear weapons technology is small. " First, any country that can produce a working energy-producing fusion reactor can easily produce any kind of ordinary nuclear weapon it wants to produce. Second, there isn't a direct overlap with nuclear weapons technology, but a fusion reactor will produce a great neutron flux, which could be used to breed plutonium from U-238. U-238 is easily available, so U-238 + fusion reactor = lots of weapons-ready plutonium. But it's a moot point because fusion is so much more advanced than nuclear weapons. We've had nuclear weapons for the past sixty years, and we're still fifty years away from commercial fusion.

  224. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Krach42 · · Score: 1

    "Shit" and "Scheisse" come from the same Germanic origin (they are cognates) but "shit" is certainly not from German.

    This is like humans evolved from chimpanzees. No. We both evolved from a common ancestor which was neither human nor chimp.

    In the same way, Germanic split out of the Indo-European tree (where it differs from its acestral connection to other languages like Latin, and Greek.)

    Germanic then split into North, East, and West Germanic. North Germanic was basically the Gothic languages, and has since died out before any good specimens of the languages could be recorded.

    North Germanic became the Scandanavian languages (or language, depending on where you draw your political boundaries)

    West Germanic developed into low and high German. Low German developed into English, Frisian, Dutch, and Plattdeutsch.

    High German developed into New High German, and various dialects based on it.

    Also, English, before being altered by the influx of French into England, was altered by the Scandanavians and their occupation of England.

    So, before we even have the original origins that are pretty similar to German, we have alterations due to Scandanavian occupation, and French alterations due to Norman occupation.

    "shit" is definitively *not* from German. It's Germanic in origin, but it does not come from German.

    The English neologism "uber", *is* from German. "shit" is not.

    (Interesting note: German geeks can now be said to have two words now "über" and "uber", the first being the original meaning, and the second being a borrowing of the English word "uber" which was origianlly borrowed from the German word "über".)

    --

    I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  225. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U.S. gloating over these wars reminds me of two boxers going at it for ten rounds, and then in the eleventh round another fighter who had been sitting safetly in the locker room jumps into the ring and pops out the fatigued opponent, and then mocks the other fighter for not having the strength to do it themselves.

    Someone could hardly claim that France stayed in the ring for 10 rounds during World War 2. (Unless you count lying on the floor in a stupor) The US did far more fighting. On two fronts.

    That analogy does apply more closely to World War 1, I admit.

  226. Ten percent of car buyers say SUVs are patriotic! by Optic7 · · Score: 1
    I heard this on the radio today, and was like, WTF??? What's the logic behind that? Here's the press release on the survey:

    http://www.kbb.com/kbbmedia/index.asp?pg=release&y ear=2005&date=6-27

  227. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Krach42 · · Score: 2

    Me and my friends were making fun of the French *before* the Iraqi War.

    I remember getting kicked out of our IRC channel, because I called a guy "Frenchie" This was well before we (the US) even started talking about going into Iraq. At least a year in fact.

    Don't assume that all French bashing is done in malice over the Iraqi War. While it's true that most of it is because of this (hey, it became popular to make fun of the French.) But some people just made fun of France before then, just because.

    Besides, they smell.

    Seriously though, this is not really intended with any real heart people. I have no malice intended in my bashing of France. It's just a light hearting target of our bashing-rants. Like the one kid at school, who always got teased. I think France is doing a pretty damn fine job, and they've done miracles with their military at times.

    And I will not take the claim that France's military sucks because they couldn't take out Germany in WW1, and were taken over in WW2. They were in a bad spot, against a very strong military opponent. In WW1, they deserve all the credit for holding out as long as they did. In WW2... hell, look what happened to Poland. It fell faster than France. Only reason why Britain took so long was the channel between the mainland and them. If Hitler had had the chunnel, England would have been his.

    So, I don't make fun of France just because they didn't support the Iraqi War. I also don't make fun of France because I have some true malice in my heart. It's light-hearted, like when I make fun of Laughing Boy for having the most annoying laugh in the world. (Serious, he could be on the other side of Wal-mart and you would know he were laughing.)

    Some of us are just kidding around.

    --

    I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  228. Problem with sun as fusion generator... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...is cable losses. 93 million miles, you do the math.

    </deadpan>

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  229. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Yes, well, in WWII I don't believe there was an army in the world that would have lasted much longer than France's. France had a long land border with Nazi Germany, the Wermacht, inventor of the Blitzkrieg. Britain, Russia, and the U.S. were spared because of the English Channel, the Russian Winter, and the Atlantic Ocean respectively. France was pretty much screwed.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  230. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by stevelinton · · Score: 1

    Fuel re-processing and breeders are independent things.

    Re-processing splits a used fuel rod into a small amount of highly radioactive waste (fission products) a larger amount of medium-level waste (things like fuel rod coatings that have been in the heart of the reactor and got pretty active) and a lot of uranium and plutonium that can be used as fuel.

    It sound like a great idea, but there are some issues in practice: you produce and separate plutonium, from which it's loads easier to make bombs that from uranium; the process is quite hard to do safely and economically, you need acids and heat and heavy machinery, all remotely operated and rad-hardenened; you make lots more low-level waste from the used materials, plant and equipment.

    Breeder reactors are nuclear reactors are "tuned" to turn U238, which is 99+ percent of natural uranium and not directly usable as fuel, into plutonium, which can be used. Together with a reprocessing plant you get a cycle that effectively burns U238, and produces small amounts of high level waste plus lots of medium and low-level waster. Which is nice, but it's not cheap or simple.

  231. Re:The Complete Military History of France by David+Off · · Score: 1

    Erm, sorry to say it was the Normans who conquered the English, they were Vikings who had previously conquered Northern France (Normandy). So, erm, that looks like another loss.

  232. Re:The Complete Military History of France by David+Off · · Score: 1

    Hah, that's funny. You know when Hannibal was invading Italy he wrote to his brother to find mercenaries, at the end of the letter he said

    "ps don't take any Gauls (French) they are quickly discouraged in battle and moan a lot."

    It was Charles de Gaulle who unearthed that gem in a letter to his son. He added the note: "See! 2000 years later the French are no better - they are vealcows just fit to be mown down by German machine guns."

  233. Re:The Complete Military History of France by arkanoid.dk · · Score: 1

    Good navy historically, though. But they even lost to Sweden (some of all the times). :-)

    Yeah, but it were beaten and stolen by the British in 1807

    Pray tell me, how many hundreds of percent has the ISS gone beyond the projected costs? 5? 10? Well, the shuttle still makes it look cheap to build and run, so let us put that at NASA and not Denmark. :-)

    I didn't say Denmark is the main force behind ISS, I said that Denmark has developed equipment which is true. Several Danish companies and universites (Thrane & Thrane, DTU, you name it) has delivered equipment for the station.

    I really don't get your point with the projected costs... yes, it is expensive, far more than were though (partially because of the Columbia accident) but honestly - the second we let money hinder science and development we will stagnate and fall...

    --
    Arkanoid
    gethostbyintuition()... why not?
  234. Re:The Complete Military History of France by caluml · · Score: 1

    I only found out recently that the US got involved in WW2 only when it was agreed that we would pay all their troops, fuel and other expenses. It's a debt that runs on until this day.

  235. little comfort... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    Somehow I think that irony will be little comfort years from now, should history show that the French acted unilaterally to ensure the progress of mankind, while the US acted unilaterally to horde resources for themselves.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:little comfort... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      while the US acted unilaterally to horde resources for themselves

      Now, how exactly is that taking place? Really. I'm genuinely curious, when I hear that thought expressed, just how the international oil market is being kept from buying Iraqi oil. If the US was actually doing anything at all like you're describing, wouldn't we have kept some influence over how Kuwait is doing business, having saved them from Saddam's earlier invasion? Instead, we're busy competing with huge new purchases from China and India, and watching our oil costs go up. Or, we might invest all of the billions we're pouring into things like infrastructure in Iraq (like the electrical grid, now producing more electricity than it was while Saddam was in power, or the municipal water systems, which we're dragging back from 20 years of neglect) and instead just build a lot more oil pumping facilities and only allow in our tankers... but of course that is not the situation, and you know it. Iraq is free to sell their oil to anyone who's willing to pay the going rate. The biggest problem the US has is not oil supply, it's refining capacity. But if you're so sure we're "hording" resrouces, please point out how you're actually arriving at that conclusion. On the other hand, you used the phrase "should history show," which of course means that you don't know any such thing, but bashing the US makes you feel good, so you thought you'd get off that little jab. At least now, when Iraq sells a barrel of their oil, the proceeds don't go directly to Saddam, his thuggish military, and a minority tribe from Tikrit (and to a few slimy international oil voucher recipients, including officials in France, who went to a great deal of trouble to try to keep Saddam in power, even as he was routinely killing certain ethnic groups, sending cash to Hamas and Hezbollah, and shooting at the UN-mandated no-fly-zone patrol aircraft every day).

      There's no irony if you don't actually have the situation described correctly. Only weak rhetoric.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:little comfort... by ViVeLaMe · · Score: 1
      and to a few slimy international oil voucher recipients, including officials in France, who went to a great deal of trouble to try to keep Saddam in power, even as he was routinely killing certain ethnic groups, sending cash to Hamas and Hezbollah, and shooting at the UN-mandated no-fly-zone patrol aircraft every day)

      Wow wow, you're all over the place here, and you got it all wrong.
      1) the biggest recipients of Oil Vouchers (which are, well, you know, VOUCHERS, not actual oil, or actual money) were US citizen and corporations.
      2) "shooting at the UN-mandated no-fly-zone patrol aircraft every day" care to back that with a link? Can't find one? Yeah, thought so.
      3) Soooo, which ethnic groups did saddam target during the "Oil for Food" program? Oh, you mean, like, the Kurds? back then, when Rummy was shaking his hand and saying "no, we didn't see what you did to the kurds, no problem here, move on"?

      remember,
      There's no irony if you don't actually have the situation described correctly. Only weak rhetoric.
      --
      i had a sig, once..
    3. Re:little comfort... by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      the biggest recipients of Oil Vouchers (which are, well, you know, VOUCHERS, not actual oil, or actual money) were US citizen and corporations.

      Of course - the whole point of the oil-for-food system was to actually promote the continuing sale of Iraqi oil so that the proceeds to feed the Iraqi people, despite their glorious leader's bad habit of attacking neighboring countries or local ethnic minorities. Much of that business was done through US companies, just like it was done through companies all over the world (oil is used everywhere, don't you know). The issue is the personal receipt of those vouchers by people who used them in various forms of influence peddling. At least a couple of unscrupulous American oil traders used them for personal profit. I was referring to the receipt of them by officials (say, in France) who either themselves, or through their close associates, were able to loudly proclaim their commitment to using French security council veto power to block any UN sanction of force to remove Saddam. The Russians (another huge recipient, and shady dealer in the vouchers) pretty much said the same thing, only in even more absolute terms). Hell, both countries made regular press releases to that effect. It's one thing for people in the oil business, who trade oil every day, to buy oil vouchers from Iraq. It's quite another to receive them as "gifts" in the same period of time that you're saying Saddam should be left alone in his brutality.

      "shooting at the UN-mandated no-fly-zone patrol aircraft every day" care to back that with a link? Can't find one? Yeah, thought so.

      "Every day" as in "every day that they could re-assemble the anti-aircraft hardware that UK and US pilots continually destroyed when/wherever they could find it." Usually they found it by tracing the targeting radar signals and fire they were taking from it. On a first page of Google results, here is an example of a typical month or two of Iraqi AA facilities illuminating and/or shooting (once in range, if allowed by the pilots) at patroling aircraft. Or here, where a Washington Post correspondent mentions the hundreds of engagements that started to ramp up after 1998 when Saddam had started to rebuild is AA facilities (with, of course, oil-for-food money). Or here, where CNN mentions Iraq firing SA-2 missiles into Kuwaiti airspace trying to knock down observation planes over the southern no-fly zone. Or here, where pilots mention the hundreds of such encounters that started to increase after 1998. Or, articles like this
      Soooo, which ethnic groups did saddam target during the "Oil for Food" program

      I was referring more to the general subjugation of the Shia majority to the Sunni minority. Goes without saying that the Kurds got the shaft starting way back in the 1970s. Under the northern no-fly zone, though, which also precluded the movement of any Iraqi military hardware in that area, the Kurds actually built up substantially better lives (through trade with their northern neighbors) and were in a much better position to thrive when Saddam was completely taken out of the picture. Under the protection of the no-fly enforcement, the Kurds evolved an independent political entity that defined a de facto state including ministries, a parliament, central banking/currency, and a functional bureaucracy. Knowing they weren't getting attacked by Saddam any longer, they didn't bother waiting for his inevitable demise. The investment in that Kurdish infrastructure only came because of trust in the ongoing protection from the no-fly operations.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  236. Re:The Complete Military History of France by apanap · · Score: 1

    Shampoo is french (in addition to perfume, which I guess is what you're referring to). So much for your theory...

    --
    Give me a job. Please?
  237. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it's Chinese and Russian stubborness.

  238. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Delirium+Tremens · · Score: 1

    Actualy, both 'personal' and 'hygiene' have French origin.

  239. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe as well as helping the revolution in America that France was busy instigating fights with the British throughout their Empire which, luckily for you yanks, meant we weren't that interested in a colony of fundamentalist religious lunatics.

  240. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were screwed because of themselves not because of geography. They saw germany arming itself and thought there stupid maginot line would prevent another invasion. They deluded themselves into thinking that this would protect them when a 5 year old looking at a map could tell you how to defeat it.

    France has had some of the greatest armies the world has ever seen but for the past 100 years or so they have been completely worthless militarily.

  241. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Yah, the French certainly made some blunders. The Maginot Line is one of history's most famous -- though you do have to remember that the fast tank attack hadn't been seen yet. It was still pretty stupid to imagine that WWII would be a repeat of WWI. Yet I maintain that nobody would have been able to stand up to that first German rush in 1940. Nobody was prepared for Blitzkrieg.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  242. Re:10 Years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is certainly not true that all Brits think France sucks - it has some very beautiful countryside. The French on the other hand . . .

  243. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

    Huh? Germany still has lots of nuclear plants. There is *talk* about shutting them down within the next *30 years* or so; saying that they already have been "outlawed and disbanded" is so blatantly false that it's quite hard to even attempt to attribute your statement to naivity and stupidity instead of labelling you as a troll.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  244. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Oniko · · Score: 1

    Good movie, and book.

  245. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Retric · · Score: 1

    It's from (T) transmission losses.

    G = Power plant A produces X MW
    C = Consumption = Total energy uses at the meter.

    G - C = T

    G - C - E (export) + I(Import) = T

  246. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  247. Cheaper than VA Linux by Animats · · Score: 1
    If the ITER was likely to yield a usable power source, it could be financed privately.

    VA Linux (remember them?) at peak had a bigger market cap than the ITER will cost.

  248. Probably urban legend by Knuckles · · Score: 1

    My fascist chemistry teacher told me the same story about another place 18 years ago in Austria. Just google for oxygen-dihydride and you see the same story over and over.

    If your local greens really fell for that, they are the dumbest greens ever. E.g., the greens in Austria usually have chemists and other scientists in the parliament and EU parliament. (They have dumb people too though.)

    --
    "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  249. More on Greenpeace's objection to ITER by LionMage · · Score: 1
    I covered this in my blog (no, I'm not gonna link to it because I don't want to be accused of pimping it -- and besides, I don't want it to be slashdotted), and I found a choice quote reported by Bloomberg:
    "Nuclear fusion poses the exact problems of nuclear fission in the production of radioactive waste, the risks of accidents and proliferation," said Frederic Miller, head of Greenpeace France's nuclear campaign, in an e-mailed statement. "France seems hypnotized by this absurd project."

    This is factually incorrect. The direct waste product of fusion is helium. Indirect waste products may include materials from the reactor that will become mildly radioactive over time due to neutron flux from the fusion reactions. Yet this nimrod from Greenpeace equates the amount and type of waste produced by fusion to the amount and type of waste produced by fission, and then goes on (incredibly) to bring up the specter of nuclear proliferation.

    How a fusion reactor could possibly lead to nuclear proliferation is beyond me. Indeed, how can you portably weaponize the technology used for generating power from fusion reactions? We already have fusion bombs, but they are nothing like the tech needed for sustainable fusion reactions.

    This is the worst kind of FUD -- it's based entirely on misinformation and outright ignorance, and preys upon the ignorance of the common man. It's idiocy like this that makes me question much beloved institutions such as freedom of speech. Individuals have the protection of laws which limit speech (e.g., laws against defamation, slander, and libel), but nothing prevents people from making wildly absurd claims that can torpedo funding for a project that will benefit humanity.
  250. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Knetzar · · Score: 1

    Thank you, but shouldn't transmission loss be considered when one is considering consumption? I can see G, C, and E being clearly metered in large facilities, but trasmission loss can happen between the metering and consumption of the electricity. Or is that little bit considered insignificent?

  251. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by hcdejong · · Score: 1

    You do realize that Japan still is involved, do you? It's an international project, they just chose to build the reactor in France rather than Japan (which makes sense, considering the population density of Japan vs France).

  252. Re:A little bit disappointed, but there's an upsid by Retric · · Score: 1

    It's a billing isue building "huge" power plants let's the power company be more effecent in some ways but the furter that power goes the more transmission losses they get so they need to seperate the generation of power from the people using it so they know where to expand capasity for the best bang for the buck as it where.

    Also if a power plant in New York is selling power to DC where they set the meter will change the useage picture so they look at supply as how much power is going to be supplyed to a specific location. The simple fact is the grid seperates the use of power from the generation of power to such an extent that you realy can't tell how much of any one plant's power is lost from transmission isues.

    There are basicly 3 players in power the guys that make it the guys that send it around and the guys who use it and somone might do a little of all three they can generate 500MW buy 500MW use 300MW sell 650MW and lose 50MW but they guy selling the power does not care if he is losing that 50MW and the guys useing that 650MW don't care so he hase to eat the cost. By seperating the generation from useage they can get an accurate picture of what's going on and so they can say to the generation people I will pay you 9.801c per MW at location A and 9.701c per MW at location B.

  253. Re:Will this usher in a period of unlimited energy by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

    Sources? or did you just pull that figure out of your ass?

    --
    Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
  254. Re:The Complete Military History of France by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You might expect responses to this post to be long, angry rants, but how about just a couple friendly notes instead?

    1. "US, which won the war in your history book..." This suggests that this is what you imagine "our" history books must say. All I can say is that I'm reasonably well-read, and I hope you find it reassuring that none of the WWI books I've read say that. To the contrary, the ones I've read all give a pretty balanced account of the War. In fact, if the U.S. is lauded, it is usually for our stance *after* the war -- i.e., that Germany should be rebuilt, not vindictively punished.

    2. The whole "Russia did most of the fighting" meme has been addressed again and again. I won't go into it here, only remind you of the highlights: The Stalin-Ribbentrov pact; the fact that the Russians had previously executed most of their own skilled officers; the fact that Stalin disastrously insisted on a line-based defense, (rather than the defense-in-depth that his remaining generals advised); the fact that Russian troops went into battle accompanied by political officers, who shot their own troops to force others into battle; the fact that Russia received vital food, fuel and equipment via the U.S. Lend-Lease program; Russian mass-wave tactics vs. German armor; the fact that as many Russians as Germans froze to death; etc. etc.

    3. "Many of the European wars have been because one of the great nations got the military upper hand"

    Actually, allow me to suggest that the *only* times of extended peace Europe has ever known has been when one party (Rome, the British Navy, The Soviet Union, the United States) achieved a monopoly on power and *enforced* a peace. Believe me, I sincerely understand the degree to which this might rankle. It would bug me too. But think about it -- does France feel militarily threatened by Germany? No? Maybe that's because, 60 years ago, the U.S. forced Germany to become a democracy (then, of course, helped it rebuild).

    4. China may indeed be a dominant nation. On the other hand, that "dominance" is supported by untold millions of faceless peasants laboring away in the fields under a communist government, occasionaly joining the People's Army so they can move into the city, massacre some political dissidents and throw others in prison. Is this really the nation you want to hold up to the U.S. as an example to emulate? Which country would you rather be: Canada, or Tibet?

    Anyhow, don't want to come across as France bashing. France is no more or less motivated by self-interest as any other nation, as far as I can tell. Myself, I'd love to go there someday. I've heard it's wonderful.

    - Alaska Jack